Darshandan Surapdan Gadhvi ... vs Gujarat State Electricity ...
2021 Latest Caselaw 14957 Guj

      C/CA/1368/2021                                         ORDER DATED: 23/09/2021




            IN THE HIGH COURT OF GUJARAT AT AHMEDABAD

                       R/CIVIL APPLICATION NO. 1368 of 2021

             In F/LETTERS PATENT APPEAL NO. 17969 of 2021

==========================================================
     DARSHANDAN SURAPDAN GADHVI EXPIRED THROUGH LH
                          Versus
  GUJARAT STATE ELECTRICITY CORPORATION LIMITED THROUGH
                     CHIEF ENGINEER
==========================================================
Appearance:
JEET Y RAJYAGURU(8039) for the Applicant(s) No. 1,1.1,1.2,1.3,1.4,1.5,1.6
MR PREMAL R JOSHI(1327) for the Respondent(s) No. 1
==========================================================

 CORAM:HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE N.V.ANJARIA
       and
       HONOURABLE DR. JUSTICE A. P. THAKER

                                Date : 23/09/2021

                         ORAL ORDER

(PER : HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE N.V.ANJARIA)

Heard learned advocate Mr.Jeet Rajyaguru for the applicants and learned advocate Mr.Premal Joshi for the respondent.

2. This application is filed praying to condone delay of 204 days. The delay has taken place in preferring the Letters Patent Appeal against the judgment of the learned Single Judge.

3. The applicants are the heirs of the workman who had in his favour judgment and award of the Labour Court, Bhuj for reinstatement with continuity of service and 25% back wages but without consequential benefits. Learned Single Judge set aside the said judgment and award, therefore the Letters Patent Appeal is sought to be filed.

C/CA/1368/2021 ORDER DATED: 23/09/2021

4. Delay is explained stating that after passing of the impugned order the applicants consulted the lawyer who had appeared in Special Civil Application. The advocate wanted certain further papers which were provided and thereafter Letters Patent Appeal was filed. It is stated that it is the process of consultation of the lawyers which resulted into passage of time and the delay as above.

4.1 Learned advocate submitted that no prejudice would be caused to the other side if the delay is condoned and the applicants are allowed to contest their case on merits as the judgment and award has been set aside by the learned Single Judge.

5. In totality of circumstances, it cannot be said that the applicants were negligent or that they deliberately whiled away the time. It is also trite that instead of throwing them away on the ground of delay, they should be allowed to contest their case and to plead in favour of the judgment and award of the Labour Court on merits.

6. Sufficient cause can be said to be made out. Delay of 204 days is condoned.

7. Application is allowed. Rule is made absolute.

(N.V.ANJARIA, J)

(DR. A. P. THAKER, J) ANUP