State Of Gujarat vs Poapatbhai Karabhai Mer
2021 Latest Caselaw 18498 Guj

     C/SCA/14722/2021                                       ORDER DATED: 16/12/2021



            IN THE HIGH COURT OF GUJARAT AT AHMEDABAD

             R/SPECIAL CIVIL APPLICATION NO. 14722 of 2021
                                 With
             R/SPECIAL CIVIL APPLICATION NO. 14723 of 2021
================================================================
                             STATE OF GUJARAT
                                   Versus
                          POAPATBHAI KARABHAI MER
================================================================
Appearance:
MR.ADITYASINH JADEJA, AGP for the Petitioner(s) No. 1
for the Respondent(s) No. 1,2
================================================================

 CORAM:HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE A.S. SUPEHIA

                              Date : 16/12/2021
                            COMMON ORAL ORDER

The present matters have been filed challenging the judgment and order dated 01.08.2014 passed by the Labour Court (J.D.) Junagadh in Recovery Application No.330 of 2001 and Recovery Application No.31 of 2004.

As the prayers will suggest that there is a delay of more than 7 years in challenging the impugned orders. When the Court has inquired with regard to delay, an additional affidavit has been filed on behalf of the petitioner authority explaining delay.

On perusal of the affidavit, it would reveal that for the first time a Communication dated 02.01.2015 was written to the Deputy Conservator of Forest, Porbandar for providing documents, which were provided on 23.06.2015.

Thereafter, finally it is stated in Paragraph

C/SCA/14722/2021 ORDER DATED: 16/12/2021

No.4 of the affidavit that the documents were not provided to the Government Pleader Office on 14.02.2017. Thereafter, on 14.02.2017 the Assistant Government Pleader was briefed in order to file the present writ petitions. Thus, even after year 2017, after passage of four years, nothing was done. Thus, the delay is not satisfactory explained. It is also submitted by the learned AGP that the respondent workman has been reinstated in service and he is being paid minimum regular Pay Scale, hence, entertaining the present petition at the belated stage will have serious repercussion on the respondent workman.

Hence, the writ petitions cannot be entertained. The same are rejected summarily.

(A. S. SUPEHIA, J) NABILA