Gujarat High Court
Sir P P Institute Of Science vs Presiding Officer on 18 September, 2025
NEUTRAL CITATION
C/SCA/2766/2023 JUDGMENT DATED: 18/09/2025
undefined
IN THE HIGH COURT OF GUJARAT AT AHMEDABAD
R/SPECIAL CIVIL APPLICATION NO. 2766 of 2023
With
R/SPECIAL CIVIL APPLICATION NO. 2815 of 2023
With
R/SPECIAL CIVIL APPLICATION NO. 2844 of 2023
FOR APPROVAL AND SIGNATURE:
HONOURABLE MRS. JUSTICE M. K. THAKKER
==========================================================
Approved for Reporting Yes No
YES
==========================================================
SIR P P INSTITUTE OF SCIENCE & ANR.
Versus
PRESIDING OFFICER & ANR.
==========================================================
Appearance:
MR HRIDAY BUCH(2372) for the Petitioner(s) No. 1,2
NOTICE SERVED for the Respondent(s) No. 1
PARTH J ADHYARU(9359) for the Respondent(s) No. 2
SIDDHI V VADODARIYA(9533) for the Respondent(s) No. 2
==========================================================
CORAM:HONOURABLE MRS. JUSTICE M. K. THAKKER
Date : 18/09/2025
COMMON ORAL JUDGMENT
1 Rule, returnable forthwith. Learned advocate Ms.Vadodariya waives service of notice of Rule.
2 Since the issue raised in the these petitions are similar, they are being decided by a common Page 1 of 12 Uploaded by M.M.MIRZA(HC01407) on Mon Sep 22 2025 Downloaded on : Mon Sep 22 22:41:51 IST 2025 NEUTRAL CITATION C/SCA/2766/2023 JUDGMENT DATED: 18/09/2025 undefined judgment. The facts of Special Civil Application No.2766 of 2023 are taken for the purpose of adjudication.
3 This petition is filed challenging the order dated 24.08.2022 passed by the learned Labour Court in Misc. Application No.47 of 2021 as well as the award dated 19.07.2019 passed by the learned Reference Court in Reference (LCB) No.126 of 2016.
4 It is the case of the petitioner that respondent No.2 was working as a Peon with the petitioner for different periods in the respective petitions, namely, for 08 years in Special Civil Application No.2844 of 2023, for 04 years and 07 months in Special Civil Application No.2815 of 2023, and for 02 years in another case, and their services came to be terminated on 17.05.2016. Aggrieved by the said termination, respondent No.2 raised an industrial dispute before the learned Labour Court seeking reinstatement and quashment of the termination order, which came to be registered as Reference (LCB) No.126 of 2016. Though notice was issued to the petitioner and a copy of the statement of claim was also served, the petitioner failed to remain present before the Labour Court, and consequently, the right to file reply and to adduce evidence was closed. Thereafter, by an ex parte award dated Page 2 of 12 Uploaded by M.M.MIRZA(HC01407) on Mon Sep 22 2025 Downloaded on : Mon Sep 22 22:41:51 IST 2025 NEUTRAL CITATION C/SCA/2766/2023 JUDGMENT DATED: 18/09/2025 undefined 19.07.2019, the learned Labour Court directed the petitioner to reinstate respondent No.2 with 30% back wages. The petitioner thereafter filed Misc. Application No.47 of 2021 on 05.11.2020 under Rule 26A of the Gujarat Industrial Disputes Rules, 1996, inter alia praying for setting aside of the ex parte award dated 19.07.2019 and for restoration of the Reference to its original file. The learned Labour Court, however, after considering the explanation offered by the petitioner, dismissed the said application, which is the subject matter of challenge before this Court.
5 Heard the learned advocate Mr.Buch for the petitioner and the learned advocate Mr.Vadodariya for the respondent.
6 Learned advocate Mr. Buch submits that the learned Labour Court has committed an error in allowing the Reference in the absence of any order of appointment or attendance sheet on record. It is submitted that respondent No.2 was engaged only as a daily wager through outsourcing and was never appointed by following the due process of recruitment. Having thus entered through the backdoor, the respondent cannot claim reinstatement nor seek the benefit of compliance under Section 25F of the I.D. Act. Learned advocate Page 3 of 12 Uploaded by M.M.MIRZA(HC01407) on Mon Sep 22 2025 Downloaded on : Mon Sep 22 22:41:51 IST 2025 NEUTRAL CITATION C/SCA/2766/2023 JUDGMENT DATED: 18/09/2025 undefined Mr. Buch further submits that though the petitioner had engaged an advocate, the said advocate failed to appear before the Labour Court, and therefore, the impugned award came to be passed ex parte. On being informed of the said fact, the petitioner passed a resolution for change of advocate, and on that ground also, an opportunity deserves to be granted to the petitioner to participate in the Reference proceedings. Learned advocate Mr. Buch also submits that while issuing notice, this Court had directed the petitioner to deposit costs of Rs.15,000/-, which has already been deposited and is lying with the Registry, and therefore, even on condition of disbursement of the said amount in favour of respondent No.2, the impugned orders deserve to be set aside.
7 Per contra, learned advocate Ms. Vadodariya submits that the learned Labour Court has specifically recorded in its award that despite service of notices and receipt of the statement of claim, the petitioner failed to appear, and therefore, the stages for filing the written statement, conducting cross-examination, and leading oral evidence came to be closed. Learned advocate Ms. Vadodariya further submits that insofar as the contention regarding engagement through an outsourcing agency is concerned, no Page 4 of 12 Uploaded by M.M.MIRZA(HC01407) on Mon Sep 22 2025 Downloaded on : Mon Sep 22 22:41:51 IST 2025 NEUTRAL CITATION C/SCA/2766/2023 JUDGMENT DATED: 18/09/2025 undefined evidence was ever adduced by the petitioner. Even otherwise, despite sufficient opportunities being granted and the matter having been adjourned for that very purpose with a direction to file an affidavit, the petitioner failed to place any such material on record.
7.1 Learned advocate Ms. Vadodariya submits that the restoration application filed by the petitioner does not disclose any ground with regard to the alleged negligence of the advocate. However, as an afterthought, such a ground, though not raised in the petition, has now been argued by the learned advocate. She further submits that, upon completion of eight years of service, the order of termination was passed without following the procedure prescribed under Section 25F of the I.D. Act, and therefore, the learned Court has rightly rejected the application for restoration. Learned advocate Ms. Vadodariya submits that except for the plea of lack of knowledge, no cogent or sufficient reason has been stated in the restoration application, and hence, the order passed by the learned Court does not warrant any interference. She further submits that the amount deposited before this Court is still lying with the Registry and has not been withdrawn by the respondent, and on that ground also, no interference is called for and Page 5 of 12 Uploaded by M.M.MIRZA(HC01407) on Mon Sep 22 2025 Downloaded on : Mon Sep 22 22:41:51 IST 2025 NEUTRAL CITATION C/SCA/2766/2023 JUDGMENT DATED: 18/09/2025 undefined the petition deserves to be dismissed.
8 Having considered the arguments advanced by the learned advocates for the respective parties, it emerges that the Reference was filed seeking reinstatement along with consequential reliefs, alleging that though the respondent had completed eight years of service, the services came to be terminated without complying with the provisions of Section 25F of the I.D. Act. On examining the reasons assigned by the learned Labour Court while passing the award, it appears that the notice issued below Exhibit 9 was duly served upon the present petitioner, and thereafter, the statement of claim was also received. In support of acknowledgment of service, the respondent produced documents below Marks 8/1, 8/2, and 8/3 before the learned Labour Court.
8.1 As the petitioner failed to appear before the learned Labour Court, the Reference was allowed in favour of the respondent, holding that the termination was illegal and directing reinstatement with 30% back wages. The petitioner thereafter filed an application on 05.11.2020 seeking restoration of the Reference and setting aside of the ex-parte award dated 19.07.2019. On perusal of the said application, it emerges that except for Page 6 of 12 Uploaded by M.M.MIRZA(HC01407) on Mon Sep 22 2025 Downloaded on : Mon Sep 22 22:41:51 IST 2025 NEUTRAL CITATION C/SCA/2766/2023 JUDGMENT DATED: 18/09/2025 undefined the contention of lack of knowledge, no other grounds were raised.
8.2 Meanwhile, the respondent also initiated proceedings for breach of award, and notices in that regard were issued to the petitioner on 08.12.2022. The learned Court has further relied upon the Resolution passed by the petitioner- University on 27.12.2022, wherein it was stated that the advocate was changed and briefs were handed over to a new advocate. However, as the restoration application had already been filed in the year 2020, much prior to the said Resolution, the same cannot be pressed into service by the petitioner to contend that the advocate was immediately changed upon gaining knowledge of the ex-parte award.
9 So far as the only ground which is raised by the petitioner in oral arguments with regard to negligence on the part of the advocate is concerned, this Court has referred the decision rendered by the Apex Court in the case of Rajneesh Kumar & Anr. vs. Ved Prakash, reported in 2024 SCC OnLine SC 3380 wherein the Apex Court has held as under:
"10. It appears that the entire blame has been thrown on the head of the advocate who was appearing for the petitioners in the trial court. We have noticed over a Page 7 of 12 Uploaded by M.M.MIRZA(HC01407) on Mon Sep 22 2025 Downloaded on : Mon Sep 22 22:41:51 IST 2025 NEUTRAL CITATION C/SCA/2766/2023 JUDGMENT DATED: 18/09/2025 undefined period of time a tendency on the part of the litigants to blame their lawyers of negligence and carelessness in attending the proceedings before the court. Even if we assume for a moment that the concerned lawyer was careless or negligent, this, by itself, cannot be a ground to condone long and inordinate delay as the litigant owes a duty to be vigilant of his own rights and is expected to be equally vigilant about the judicial proceedings pending in the court initiated at his instance. The litigant, therefore, should not be permitted to throw the entire blame on the head of the advocate and thereby disown him at any time and seek relief.
11. In the aforesaid context, we may refer to a decision of this Court in the case of Salil Dutta v. T.M. & M.C. Private Ltd. reported in (1993) 2 SCC 185, wherein this Court observed as under:-
"8. The advocate is the agent of the party. His acts and statements, made within the limits of authority given to him, are the acts and statements of the principal i.e. the party who engage him. It is true that in certain situations, the court may, in the interest of justice, set aside a dismissal order or an ex parte decree Page 8 of 12 Uploaded by M.M.MIRZA(HC01407) on Mon Sep 22 2025 Downloaded on : Mon Sep 22 22:41:51 IST 2025 NEUTRAL CITATION C/SCA/2766/2023 JUDGMENT DATED: 18/09/2025 undefined notwithstanding the negligence and/or misdemeanour of the advocate where it finds that the client was an innocent litigant but there is no such absolute rule that a party can disown its advocate at any time and seek relief. No such absolute immunity can be recognized. Such an absolute rule would make the working of the system extremely difficult. The observations made in Rafiq [AIR 1981 SC 1400] must not be understood as an absolute proposition. As we have mentioned hereinabove, this was an on-going suit posted for final hearing after a lapse of seven years of its institution. It was not a second appeal filed by a villager residing away from the city, where the court is located. The defendant is also not a rustic ignorant villager but a private limited company with its head office at Calcutta itself and managed by educated businessmen who know where their interest lies. It is evident that when their applications were not deposed of before taking up the suit for final hearing they felt piqued and refused to appear before the court. May be, it was part of their delaying tactics as alleged by the plaintiff. May be not. But one thing is clear they chose to non-cooperate with Page 9 of 12 Uploaded by M.M.MIRZA(HC01407) on Mon Sep 22 2025 Downloaded on : Mon Sep 22 22:41:51 IST 2025 NEUTRAL CITATION C/SCA/2766/2023 JUDGMENT DATED: 18/09/2025 undefined the court. Having adopted such a stand towards the court, the defendant has no right to ask its indulgence. Putting the entire blame upon the advocate and trying to make it out as if they were totally unaware of the nature or significance of the proceedings is a theory which cannot be accepted and ought not to have been accepted."
(Emphasis supplied)
12. As regards the law of limitation, we may refer to the decision of this Court in Bharat Barrel & Drum MFG Go. v. The Employees State Insurance Corporation, (1971) 2 SCC 860, wherein this Court held as under:-
"The necessity for enacting periods of limitation is to ensure that actions are commenced within a particular period, firstly to assure the availability of evidence documentary as well as oral to enable the defendant to contest the claim against him; secondly to give effect to the principle that law does not assist a person who is inactive and sleeps over his rights by allowing them when challenged or disputed to remain dormant without asserting them in a Court of law. The principle which forms the basis of this rule is expressed in the maximum vigilantibus, non dermientibus, jura Page 10 of 12 Uploaded by M.M.MIRZA(HC01407) on Mon Sep 22 2025 Downloaded on : Mon Sep 22 22:41:51 IST 2025 NEUTRAL CITATION C/SCA/2766/2023 JUDGMENT DATED: 18/09/2025 undefined subveniunt (the laws give help to those who are watchful and not to those who sleep). Therefore, the object of the statutes of limitations is to compel a person to exercise his right of action within a reasonable time as also to discourage and suppress stale, fake or fraudulent claims."
(Emphasis supplied) 10This Court has also referred to the decision rendered by the Delhi High Court in the case of Rajesh Wire Industries vs. Umesh, reported in (2009) 4 LLJ 715 (Del), wherein the Delhi High Court held that the duty of a client does not end by merely engaging a counsel. He ought to have followed up with the counsel about the outcome of the matter and checked with the Labour Court as to what was happening in the matter. However, the appellant appears to have slept over the matter by engaging different counsel who did not appear, for reasons best known to the appellant or his counsel.
11 In the considered opinion of this Court, the acts and statements made within the limits of authority given to the advocate are the acts and statements of the principal, as the party who engaged him would have the relation of agent and principal. Therefore, blaming the advocate for negligence and Page 11 of 12 Uploaded by M.M.MIRZA(HC01407) on Mon Sep 22 2025 Downloaded on : Mon Sep 22 22:41:51 IST 2025 NEUTRAL CITATION C/SCA/2766/2023 JUDGMENT DATED: 18/09/2025 undefined carelessness in attending the proceedings before the Court cannot help the litigant, who owes the duty to be vigilant of his own rights and is expected to be equally vigilant about judicial proceedings pending in the Court, initiated either at his instance or by the other side. Accordingly, the litigant, as held by the Apex Court, cannot be permitted to throw the entire blame on the head of the advocate, disown him at any time, and still seek relief.
12 Considering the overall circumstances, this Court is of the view that, in absence of any sufficient and cogent reasons for not remaining present before the learned Labour Court, no error has been committed by the learned Labour Court in rejecting the application filed under Rule 26A of the I.D. Act.
13 Resultantly, these petitions are dismissed. The amount deposited before the Registry of this Court towards litigation costs shall be disbursed in favour of the respondent after due verification. Rule is discharged.
(M. K. THAKKER,J) M.M.MIRZA Page 12 of 12 Uploaded by M.M.MIRZA(HC01407) on Mon Sep 22 2025 Downloaded on : Mon Sep 22 22:41:51 IST 2025