Gujarat High Court
Ad-Manum Finance Ltd vs Koshthi Hiralal Nimailal on 9 September, 2025
NEUTRAL CITATION
C/SCA/19739/2022 JUDGMENT DATED: 09/09/2025
undefined
IN THE HIGH COURT OF GUJARAT AT AHMEDABAD
R/SPECIAL CIVIL APPLICATION NO. 19739 of 2022
FOR APPROVAL AND SIGNATURE:
HONOURABLE MRS. JUSTICE M. K. THAKKER
==========================================================
Approved for Reporting Yes No
==========================================================
AD-MANUM FINANCE LTD.
Versus
KOSHTHI HIRALAL NIMAILAL
==========================================================
Appearance:
MR YOGEN N PANDYA(5766) for the Petitioner(s) No. 1
MS. DHARTI P RATANI(8870) for the Respondent(s) No. 1
==========================================================
CORAM:HONOURABLE MRS. JUSTICE M. K. THAKKER
Date : 09/09/2025
ORAL JUDGMENT
1. This petition is filed under Articles 226 and 227 of the Constitution of India, challenging the order passed by the learned Labour Court, Ahmedabad, dated 18.05.2022, by which the application for condonation of delay in filing the restoration application came to be rejected.
2. It is the case of the present petitioner that the respondent has filed an application being Payment of Wages Application No.202 of 2015 under the Payment of Wages Act, before the Page 1 of 10 Uploaded by Vikramsinh Amarsinh(HCW0055) on Thu Sep 11 2025 Downloaded on : Thu Sep 11 22:50:55 IST 2025 NEUTRAL CITATION C/SCA/19739/2022 JUDGMENT DATED: 09/09/2025 undefined learned Authority, Ahmedabad for recovery of dues to the tune of Rs.55,800/- for the period starting from October, 2014 to March, 2015. The petitioner herein appeared before the learned Court and submitted that the petitioner was transferred to the Himmatnagar Branch; however, he did not resume duty at the said Branch. The wages, which are sought to have been paid, the respondent did not work and therefore, he is not entitled to further wages. The petitioner has produced documentary evidence on record below Exhs. 8/1, 8/2 and 11/1 to substantiate the defence of transfer. However, thereafter the petitioner has not been represented. Therefore, the learned Court, believing the case of the present respondent, has passed an order directing the present petitioner to pay an amount of Rs. 55,800/- towards wages for the period from October, 2014 to March, 2015. Challenging the said order, an application for restoration was filed along with the application for condonation of delay, being Application No.04 of 2021, seeking the condonation of delay of 3 years on the ground that the concerned advocate neither appeared nor informed with regard to the final order. On the initiation of recovery proceedings, the petitioner came into the knowledge with regard to the impugned order. Thereafter, Page 2 of 10 Uploaded by Vikramsinh Amarsinh(HCW0055) on Thu Sep 11 2025 Downloaded on : Thu Sep 11 22:50:55 IST 2025 NEUTRAL CITATION C/SCA/19739/2022 JUDGMENT DATED: 09/09/2025 undefined due to the COVID-19 Pandemic, he could not file the application for restoration in time and therefore, the delay of 3 years sought to be condoned. The learned Court, vide its order dated 18.05.2022, has dismissed the said application on the ground that though the order was passed on 04.06.2018, the application was filed on 11.08.2021 without providing any sufficient cause. The same is the subject matter of challenge before this Court.
3. Heard learned advocate Mr. Pandya for the petitioner and learned advocate Ms. Ratani for the respondent.
4. Learned advocate Mr. Pandya submits that the respondent was transferred to the Himmatnagar Branch on 20.08.2014 and as he did not resume duty at the said place, nor he has worked at the transferred place, no payment of wages is required to be made. Learned advocate Mr. Pandya submits that, except for bare words and a self-serving affidavit, no other documentary evidence was placed on record to substantiate the claim before the learned Labour Court. Learned advocate Mr. Pandya submits that the learned Court has committed an error in shifting the onus on the present petitioner to prove the case of the respondent and therefore, the impugned order dated Page 3 of 10 Uploaded by Vikramsinh Amarsinh(HCW0055) on Thu Sep 11 2025 Downloaded on : Thu Sep 11 22:50:55 IST 2025 NEUTRAL CITATION C/SCA/19739/2022 JUDGMENT DATED: 09/09/2025 undefined 04.06.2018, granting the benefit of wages for the period from October, 2014 to March, 2015, is required to be interfered with. Learned advocate Mr. Pandya submits that the petitioner came into the knowledge with regard to the order passed by the learned Labour Court on filing the recovery application by the present respondent. It is contended before the learned Labour Court that the address, which is stated before the learned Labour Court that office had been closed and though he was represented through a concerned advocate, the advocate did not inform him with regard to the order passed. Learned advocate Mr. Pandya submits that immediately thereafter, due to COVID- 19 situation, he could not file the application for restoration along with the condonation of delay immediately. However, on 11.08.2021, after getting a certified copy from the concerned Court, the application was filed, which was rejected. Learned advocate Mr. Pandya submits that even if the petitioner did not appear or did not lead any evidence, it is the bounden duty of the learned Court to examine the case on the basis of the evidence adduced by the respondent to prove his case. Learned advocate Mr. Pandya submits that in absence of the same, the learned Labour Court has committed an error in rejecting the application Page 4 of 10 Uploaded by Vikramsinh Amarsinh(HCW0055) on Thu Sep 11 2025 Downloaded on : Thu Sep 11 22:50:55 IST 2025 NEUTRAL CITATION C/SCA/19739/2022 JUDGMENT DATED: 09/09/2025 undefined for condonation of delay and therefore, the impugned order deserves to be set aside and the present petition is required to be allowed.
5. Per-contra, learned advocate Ms. Ratani submits that though sufficient opportunity was granted to the present petitioner to appear before the learned Labour Court, the petitioner did not appear nor lead any evidence to rebut the claim of the present respondent. Learned advocate Ms. Ratani submits that in absence of any contest, the learned Court is justifying in granting the application under the Payment of Wages Act and therefore, no interference is required. Learned advocate Ms. Ratani submits that the explanation, which was offered for condonation of delay with regard to the COVID-19 Pandemic was came after the limitation period came to be over. Therefore also, the learned Court is justifying in dismissing the application for condonation of delay and the present petition deserves to be dismissed and no interference is required in the impugned order.
6. Having considered the arguments advanced by the learned advocates for the respective parties and considering the reasons Page 5 of 10 Uploaded by Vikramsinh Amarsinh(HCW0055) on Thu Sep 11 2025 Downloaded on : Thu Sep 11 22:50:55 IST 2025 NEUTRAL CITATION C/SCA/19739/2022 JUDGMENT DATED: 09/09/2025 undefined assigned by the learned Labour Court, it emerges that on filing the application under the Payment of Wages Act, except for the chief examination, no evidence was adduced to substantiate the claim of wages from October, 2014 to March, 2015. The present petitioner appeared and has placed on record a copy of transfer order, reply to the notice and has cross-examined the respondent. During the cross-examination of the respondent, it is admitted by the respondent that except for the affidavit in the form of chief examination, no other evidence was adduced to substantiate the claim to prove that he worked up to March, 2015. No evidence was placed on record. However, regarding the transfer order which was placed on record, the respondent has contended that he did not receive a copy of the said order. Learned advocate has placed on record the order passed by the learned Labour Court in Reference LCA No.536 of 2016 dated 06.05.2024 and on referring to the same, it emerges that the respondent has worked at the transfer place for 2 to 3 days. In the opinion of this Court, in absence of any evidence led by the present respondent to substantiate the claim, the learned Court has committed an error in granting the wages for the period from October, 2014 to March, 2015. Additionally, it also emerges that Page 6 of 10 Uploaded by Vikramsinh Amarsinh(HCW0055) on Thu Sep 11 2025 Downloaded on : Thu Sep 11 22:50:55 IST 2025 NEUTRAL CITATION C/SCA/19739/2022 JUDGMENT DATED: 09/09/2025 undefined no application for seeking production of documents from the possession of the present petitioner was filed by the respondent. The bare words of the respondent were taken as a gospel truth by the learned Court while granting the relief under the Payment of Wages Act.
6.1 With regard to the application for condonation of delay, it is contended before the learned Court by the present petitioner that the office situated at Kankaria has been closed. Though he was represented through a concerned advocate, however, the concerned advocate neither appeared before the learned Labour Court nor informed him with regard to the order passed under the Payment of Wages Act. It is also contended that immediately thereafter, due to the Covid-19 Pandemic, he did not file an application for restoration and therefore, delay was caused in filing the application for restoration. In the considered opinion of this Court, as the learned Labour Court, while granting the relief under the Payment of Wages Act, has not assigned any cogent and sufficient reasons, an opportunity is required to be granted to the present petitioner to appear before the learned Labour Court and to controvert through the contemporaneous record. Page 7 of 10 Uploaded by Vikramsinh Amarsinh(HCW0055) on Thu Sep 11 2025 Downloaded on : Thu Sep 11 22:50:55 IST 2025
NEUTRAL CITATION C/SCA/19739/2022 JUDGMENT DATED: 09/09/2025 undefined 6.2 At this stage, this Court has referred the decision rendered by the Apex Court in the case of N. Balakrishnan v. M. Krishnamurthy, reported in AIR 1998 SC 3222, wherein the Apex Court has held as under:
"11. Rules of limitation are not meant to destroy the rights of parties. They are meant to see that parties do not resort to dilatory tactics, but seek their remedy promptly. The object of providing a legal remedy is to repair the damage caused by reason of legal injury. The law of limitation fixes a lifespan for such legal remedy for the redress of the legal injury so suffered. Time is precious and wasted time would never revisit. During the efflux of time, newer causes would sprout up necessitating newer persons to seek legal remedy by approaching the courts. So a lifespan must be fixed for each remedy. Unending period for launching the remedy may lead to unending uncertainty and consequential anarchy. The law of limitation is thus founded on public policy. It is enshrined in the maxim interest reipublicae up sit finis litium (it is for the general welfare that a period be put to litigation). Rules of limitation are not meant to destroy the rights of the parties. They are meant to see that parties do not resort to dilatory tactics but seek their remedy promptly. The idea is that every legal remedy must be kept alive for a legislatively fixed period of time."Page 8 of 10 Uploaded by Vikramsinh Amarsinh(HCW0055) on Thu Sep 11 2025 Downloaded on : Thu Sep 11 22:50:55 IST 2025
NEUTRAL CITATION C/SCA/19739/2022 JUDGMENT DATED: 09/09/2025 undefined 6.3 This Court has also referred the decision of the Apex Court rendered in the case of M.S. Grewal v. Deep Chand Sood, reported in AIR 2001 SC 3660, wherein the Apex Court has held as under:
"9. The observations as above, undoubtedly lay down the basic guidance for assessment of damage but one redeeming feature ought to be noted that compensation or damages cannot be awarded as a solatium but to assess the same with reference to loss of pecuniary benefits. In the decision last noted (Subramania Iyer [(1969) 3 SCC 64] ) this Court placed strong reliance on two old decisions of the English courts, to wit: Franklin v. South Eastern Rly. Co. [157 ER 448 : (1858) 3 H&N 211] wherein Pollock, C.B. stated:
"We do not say that it was necessary that actual benefit should have been derived, a reasonable expectation is enough and such reasonable expectation might well exist, though from the father, not being in need, the son had never done anything for him. On the other hand a jury certainly ought not to make a guess in the matter, but ought to be satisfied that there has been a loss of sensible and appreciable pecuniary benefit, which might have been reasonably expected from the continuance of life."
6.4 Considering the overall circumstances, this Court is of the view that the impugned orders dated 04.06.2018 and 18.05.2022 Page 9 of 10 Uploaded by Vikramsinh Amarsinh(HCW0055) on Thu Sep 11 2025 Downloaded on : Thu Sep 11 22:50:55 IST 2025 NEUTRAL CITATION C/SCA/19739/2022 JUDGMENT DATED: 09/09/2025 undefined are required to be set aside and the same are hereby set aside. However, at the same time, the petitioner is directed to pay costs of Rs.15,000/- to the respondent within a period of 4 weeks from today.
7. Resultantly, the present petition is allowed to the aforesaid extent. On payment of the said costs, the restoration of the main application shall be made effective and the learned Labour Court is directed to decide the same within a period of four months thereafter.
(M. K. THAKKER,J) Vikramsinh Amarsinh Page 10 of 10 Uploaded by Vikramsinh Amarsinh(HCW0055) on Thu Sep 11 2025 Downloaded on : Thu Sep 11 22:50:55 IST 2025