Gujarat High Court
Tavdi Gram Panchayat vs Lhs Of Decd. Valabhai Sursinhgbhai ... on 10 July, 2025
NEUTRAL CITATION
C/CA/825/2025 ORDER DATED: 10/07/2025
undefined
IN THE HIGH COURT OF GUJARAT AT AHMEDABAD
R/CIVIL APPLICATION (FOR CONDONATION OF DELAY) NO. 825 of
2025
In F/FIRST APPEAL NO. 12481 of 2024
================================================================
TAVDI GRAM PANCHAYAT
Versus
LHS OF DECD. VALABHAI SURSINHGBHAI DAMOR & ORS.
================================================================
Appearance:
MR. HJ KARATHIYA(7012) for the Applicant(s) No. 1
MR. ANANTANAND J SINGH(10046) for the Respondent(s) No. 1.1
NOTICE SERVED for the Respondent(s) No. 1.2,1.3,2
PRABHATSINH J PARMAR(7996) for the Respondent(s) No. 1.1
================================================================
CORAM:HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE DEVAN M. DESAI
Date : 10/07/2025
ORAL ORDER
1. This application is filed under Section 5 of the Limitation Act, 1963 for condonation of delay of 891 days in preferring the instant appeal.
2. Heard learned advocate Mr. H. J. Karathiya for the applicant and learned advocate Mr. Anantanand J. Singh for respondent No.1.1. Though served, none appeared for respondent Nos.1.2, 1.3 and 2.
3. It is contended by learned advocate for the applicant that the present applicant has challenged the judgment and decree Page 1 of 8 Uploaded by RINKU MALI(HC01574) on Wed Jul 16 2025 Downloaded on : Wed Jul 16 21:33:10 IST 2025 NEUTRAL CITATION C/CA/825/2025 ORDER DATED: 10/07/2025 undefined dated 07.09.2021 passed by learned Commissioner Employees Compensation Act, Labour Court, Dahod in Workmen Compensation (Fatal) No.261 of 2008 (Old Workmen Compensation (Fatal) Application No.63 of 2007). It is also contended that recovery certificate is also issued on 12.04.2023. It is also contended that the notices of the proceedings though served twice, the Ex-Sarpanch of the Gram Panchayat never placed notices on record of the Gram Panchayat and therefore, applicant was not aware about the proceedings initiated by respondent No.2. It is further contended that the original claimant preferred a petition being Special Civil Application No.16903 of 2023 for seeking direction for implementation of the recovery certificate issued on 12.04.2023. Upon receipt of the notice issued by this Court, the applicant came to know that the order dated 07.09.2021 has been passed against the applicant as well as against the opponent No.2 herein. It is contended that thereafter, the Page 2 of 8 Uploaded by RINKU MALI(HC01574) on Wed Jul 16 2025 Downloaded on : Wed Jul 16 21:33:10 IST 2025 NEUTRAL CITATION C/CA/825/2025 ORDER DATED: 10/07/2025 undefined certified copy of the impugned judgment and award was applied on 16.01.2024 which was received on 23.01.2024. In April 2024, the District Development Officer granted permission to file an appeal and thereafter, the present appeal came to be filed. It is further contended that there is no negligence on the part of the applicant in not challenging the impugned judgment and award within the period of limitation. It is further contended that for want of knowledge, the applicant did not remain present and contest the application. It is contended that for the negligence of the Ex-Sarpanch, applicant may not suffer. It is further contended that explanation which has been advanced in the application is sufficient for condoning the delay.
3.1. In support of his submissions, learned advocate for the applicant has placed reliance upon the decision in the case of Girja Shankar Uday Bhan Patel versus Murtaben Laltaprasad Suthar & Anr. delivered on 10.06.2025 in Page 3 of 8 Uploaded by RINKU MALI(HC01574) on Wed Jul 16 2025 Downloaded on : Wed Jul 16 21:33:10 IST 2025 NEUTRAL CITATION C/CA/825/2025 ORDER DATED: 10/07/2025 undefined R/Civil Application (For Condonation of Delay) No.3775 of 2024 in F/First Appeal No.20171 of 2024 and contended that this Court, while taking a lenient view, has condoned the delay of 530 days in preferring the appeal.
4. Per contra, learned advocate for the original applicant- present respondent-opponent No.1 has objected by making a submission that though the notices were served twice in the proceedings, the applicant remained negligent and did not contest the application. Even opponent No.2 has refused to accept notice which was issued by the learned Labour Court. Considering the material available on record, learned Labour Court allowed the application on 07.09.2021 by directing the present applicant and respondent No.2 jointly and severally to pay compensation of Rs.3,16,365/- with cost and other benefits with interest at the rate of 12% per annum. It is further contended that explanations canvassed by the applicant are not sufficient for condoning a delay of huge period. It is Page 4 of 8 Uploaded by RINKU MALI(HC01574) on Wed Jul 16 2025 Downloaded on : Wed Jul 16 21:33:10 IST 2025 NEUTRAL CITATION C/CA/825/2025 ORDER DATED: 10/07/2025 undefined contended that the certified copy of the impugned judgment and award was applied on 16.01.2024 which is after the period of limitation has expired. It is further pointed out by respondent that Co-ordinate Bench of this Court by way of an order dated 25.04.2025 has observed that time was taken by learned advcoate for applicant to ascertain a fact that whether any complaint or steps are taken against the Ex-Sarpanch or not.
5. In re-joinder, upon instructions, learned advocate for the applicant submitted that no steps or complaint has been taken against the Ex-Sarpanch.
6. No other submissions are made by learned advocates for the parties.
7. Having considered the submissions made by learned advocates for the parties and having perused the averments made in the application, it appears that the original claimants who have lost their son who was serving as a driver in Tractor Page 5 of 8 Uploaded by RINKU MALI(HC01574) on Wed Jul 16 2025 Downloaded on : Wed Jul 16 21:33:10 IST 2025 NEUTRAL CITATION C/CA/825/2025 ORDER DATED: 10/07/2025 undefined bearing Registration No.GJ-8B-5562 and was in the employment of original opponent No.1 filed claim application. When notice of the claim application was served upon original opponent No.1, the same came to be refused. So far as the notice qua present applicant is concerned, it is an admitted fact that the notice of the application was served to the present applicant twice. However, the Ex-Sarpanch of the Gram Panchyat did not place it on record and the claim petition had proceeded undefended.
8. The position of law is settled that while deciding an application for condonation of delay a lenient view is to be taken. However, the explanation put forward by the applicant for condoning delay cannot be ignored while taking a lenient view. When applicant was served twice in the original proceedings, applicant remained absent and did not contest the application. It appears from the application that when the original claimant approached this Court by way of a Special Page 6 of 8 Uploaded by RINKU MALI(HC01574) on Wed Jul 16 2025 Downloaded on : Wed Jul 16 21:33:10 IST 2025 NEUTRAL CITATION C/CA/825/2025 ORDER DATED: 10/07/2025 undefined Civil Application No.16903 of 2023 seeking direction for implementation of the recovery certificate issued on 12.04.2023, applicant came to know about order being passed by learned Labour Court on 07.09.2021. When a specific stand has been taken by the applicant that Ex-Sarpanch did not place the notice on record of the Gram Panchayat, it is sheer negligence on the part of the Ex-Sarpanch. The more annoying fact which has been brought on record by way of a submission that no action or steps have been taken against the erring Ex- Sarpanch which speaks volumes. If the applicant-Gram Panchayat is shielding an erring Ex-Sarpanch, no leniency can be shown to the applicant-Gram Panchayat in condoning delay. Even by way of imposing cost, also such negligence can't be brushed aside. The explanation does not inspire any confidence and the fact remained on record that the applicant- Gram Panchayat has also remained negligent in not taking any action against the erring officer. Moreover, the liability of Page 7 of 8 Uploaded by RINKU MALI(HC01574) on Wed Jul 16 2025 Downloaded on : Wed Jul 16 21:33:10 IST 2025 NEUTRAL CITATION C/CA/825/2025 ORDER DATED: 10/07/2025 undefined applicant is joint and several as directed by learned Labour Court. The applicant can pay the amount of compensation and then recover the same from co-opponent or from erring Ex- Sarpanch, if permissible under the law. I am of the view that reasons assigned in the application do not warrant any sympathy and in the totality of the facts and circumstances of the case, explanation which has been given by the applicant do not sound sufficient. Resultantly, the application stands dismissed.
(D. M. DESAI,J) RINKU MALI Page 8 of 8 Uploaded by RINKU MALI(HC01574) on Wed Jul 16 2025 Downloaded on : Wed Jul 16 21:33:10 IST 2025