Gujarat High Court
Pravin Giradharlal Bhatia vs Government Of India on 11 November, 2025
Author: Bhargav D. Karia
Bench: Bhargav D. Karia
NEUTRAL CITATION
C/LPA/874/2025 ORDER DATED: 11/11/2025
undefined
IN THE HIGH COURT OF GUJARAT AT AHMEDABAD
R/LETTERS PATENT APPEAL NO. 874 of 2025
In
R/SPECIAL CIVIL APPLICATION NO. 14466 of 2014
================================================================
PRAVIN GIRADHARLAL BHATIA
Versus
GOVERNMENT OF INDIA & ORS.
================================================================
Appearance:
MS. SHIVANGI M RANA(7053) for the Appellant(s) No. 1
MR PRADIP D BHATE(1523) for the Respondent(s) No. 1,3
================================================================
CORAM:HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE BHARGAV D. KARIA
and
HONOURABLE MR.JUSTICE L. S. PIRZADA
Date : 11/11/2025
ORAL ORDER
(PER : HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE BHARGAV D. KARIA)
1. Heard learned advocate Ms.Shivangi M. Rana for the appellant.
2.1. This Appeal is filed under Clause 15 of the Letters Patent, 1865 against the Judgment and Order dated 18.09.2024 passed by the learned Single Judge in Special Civil Application No.14466 of 2014 wherein, the appellant-original petitioner had challenged the order dated 4th March, 2014 passed by the Office of the Labour Commissioner refusing to refer the matter to the Labour Court in view Page 1 of 6 Uploaded by PALAK BRAHMBHATT(HC01391) on Thu Nov 13 2025 Downloaded on : Thu Nov 13 22:51:07 IST 2025 NEUTRAL CITATION C/LPA/874/2025 ORDER DATED: 11/11/2025 undefined of the failure of the conciliation report dated 29th May, 2012 as the petitioner did not raise the dispute in time and it was delayed by more than thirty years.
2.2. Learned Single Judge after considering the facts of the case, held as under :
"7. I have heard the learned advocates appearing for the respective parties and perused the material placed on record. From the bare perusal of the record and the order passed by the authority it appears that, infact contrary stand is taken by the petitioner. On one hand, he has voluntarily tendered the resignation and on the other hand, he is contending that he was terminated by the respondent authority, even in representation also he himself has stated that he had tendered voluntary resignation and now in the petition, he is contending that he was terminated, therefore, from the bare perusal of the Page 2 of 6 Uploaded by PALAK BRAHMBHATT(HC01391) on Thu Nov 13 2025 Downloaded on : Thu Nov 13 22:51:07 IST 2025 NEUTRAL CITATION C/LPA/874/2025 ORDER DATED: 11/11/2025 undefined papers and the representation, there are two contrary stand taken by the present petitioner, even the action taken by the respondent Department in 1982 was never challenged by the petitioner till 2014 and therefore, by making a representation, it cannot be said that the period of limitation cannot be stretched by way of making representation / application before the authority and here, it is now well settled by a series of judgments of this Court that the period of limitation to be considered from the date of action taken by the authority and therefore, under such circumstances, the order passed by the respondent authority is absolutely just and proper and in consideration of the facts of the present case.
7.1 The contention raised by the
learned advocate for the petitioner
with regard to not giving an
opportunity of hearing is concerned,
the same shall not come to the rescue Page 3 of 6 Uploaded by PALAK BRAHMBHATT(HC01391) on Thu Nov 13 2025 Downloaded on : Thu Nov 13 22:51:07 IST 2025 NEUTRAL CITATION C/LPA/874/2025 ORDER DATED: 11/11/2025 undefined of the present petitioner since from 1982 to 2014, the petitioner had never raised this contention and not approached the concerned authority by way of preferring any proceedings and only in 2014, the petition was filed before this Court and that was also withdrawn without there being any liberty and thereafter, the present petition was filed to challenge the order and therefore, it cannot be said that it was without hearing and without following the principles of natural justice. It is pertinent to note herein that though at the time of admission, the contention raised by the respondent department with regard to the maintainability was not decided but, as it is an undisputed fact that the petitioner was working with the postal department and the appropriate Government is the Central Government and therefore, the appropriate authority before whom the reference can be raised or action can be challenged is the Central Administrative Tribunal Page 4 of 6 Uploaded by PALAK BRAHMBHATT(HC01391) on Thu Nov 13 2025 Downloaded on : Thu Nov 13 22:51:07 IST 2025 NEUTRAL CITATION C/LPA/874/2025 ORDER DATED: 11/11/2025 undefined and even there is a gross delay of about 32 years in preferring the proceedings before this Court and there are number of judgments of the Hon'ble Apex Court that while raising the dispute if there is a delay though the delay is not prescribed under the I.D. Act, it can be considered by the competent court by way of entertaining the petition after considering the merits of the matter and herein the present case, the action impugned of 1982 was challenged in 2014 and there was a gross delay of 32 years and there was no satisfactory explanation tendered by the petitioner, merely by making a representation, the delay cannot be stretched, and therefore, the impugned action taken by the respondent authority cannot be interfered with at this stage by exercising powers under Article 226 & 227 of the Constitution of India. Fir issuance of writ of certiorari, there is a restriction on the jurisdiction conferred to the High Court and under such circumstances, Page 5 of 6 Uploaded by PALAK BRAHMBHATT(HC01391) on Thu Nov 13 2025 Downloaded on : Thu Nov 13 22:51:07 IST 2025 NEUTRAL CITATION C/LPA/874/2025 ORDER DATED: 11/11/2025 undefined while exercising such jurisdiction, the court has to take proper and diligent caution while entertaining the petition."
3. We have perused the material placed on record along with the Special Civil Application, however, in view of the resignation tendered by the appellant-original petitioner and approaching the respondent after delay of about thirty two years in preferring the proceedings, we are of the opinion that there is no case made out by the appellant to interfere in the undisputed facts of the case. We are in complete agreement with the reasons assigned by the learned Single Judge.
4. The Appeal therefore, being devoid of any merit is accordingly rejected.
(BHARGAV D. KARIA, J) (L. S. PIRZADA, J) PALAK Page 6 of 6 Uploaded by PALAK BRAHMBHATT(HC01391) on Thu Nov 13 2025 Downloaded on : Thu Nov 13 22:51:07 IST 2025