Jayesh Shantilala Vyas vs The Deputy Executive Engineer
2023 Latest Caselaw 2107 Guj

      C/LPA/275/2023                                        ORDER DATED: 06/03/2023




          IN THE HIGH COURT OF GUJARAT AT AHMEDABAD
           R/LETTERS PATENT APPEAL NO. 275 of 2023
      In R/SPECIAL CIVIL APPLICATION NO. 14372 of 2020
==========================================================
                            JAYESH SHANTILALA VYAS
                                    Versus
                        THE DEPUTY EXECUTIVE ENGINEER
==========================================================
Appearance:
HITESH A MAKWANA(8644) for the Appellant(s) No. 1
 for the Respondent(s) No. 1,2
==========================================================
  CORAM:HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE VIPUL M. PANCHOLI
        and
        HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE HEMANT M. PRACHCHHAK
                    Date : 06/03/2023
                        ORAL ORDER

(PER : HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE VIPUL M. PANCHOLI)

1. The present appeal is filed under Clause 15 of the Letters Patent by the appellant - original petitioner against the common order dated 12.01.2022 passed by the learned Single Judge in Special Civil Application No.14355 of 2020 with Special Civil Application No.14372 of 2020.

2. It is submitted that by way of the said common order, the learned Single Judge has dismissed both the petitions filed by the concerned petitioners mainly on the ground that there was delay of 17 years in raising the dispute.

3. Heard learned advocate for the appellant - original petitioner. Learned advocate, at the outset, submitted that against the impugned common order dated 12.01.2022, the petitioner of Special Civil Application No.14355 of 2020 filed Letters Patent

C/LPA/275/2023 ORDER DATED: 06/03/2023

Appeal No.111 of 2023 before this Court. The Division Bench of this Court, vide order dated 30.01.2023, has dismissed the said LPA. Copy of the said order is produced on record.

4. We have considered the submissions canvassed by learned advocate for the appellant. We have also perused the impugned common order dated 12.01.2022 passed by the learned Single Judge. It is not in dispute that against the impugned common order dated 12.01.2022, the concerned petitioner of Special Civil Application No.14355 of 2020 filed Letters Patent Appeal No.111 of 2023 and the Division Bench of this Court has dismissed the said Letters Patent Appeal by observing in para 5, 5.1 and 6 as under:

"5. The industrial dispute raised after gap of 17 years is virtually a barred remedy. Not only that the workman is presumed to have acquiesced in view of long passage of time, during which he set tight towards his right. The claimed right not exercised for a long time would render the dispute virtually non existent. The condition of existence or apprehension of an industrial dispute which is a sine qua non, could not be said to have been satisfied after 17 years and more. Even otherwise, the stale claim could not be encouraged to give accommodation to indolent litigant. Learned single Judge was justified in noticing that the industrial dispute was raised by the workman in the instant case after long period of 17 years.

5.1 The following was observed by learned single Judge,

"9. ...after survey of various judgments on the

C/LPA/275/2023 ORDER DATED: 06/03/2023

issue of delay in raising an industrial dispute, the Supreme Court has held that if a workman does not raise a dispute for a long time, it can be presumed that he has acquiesced into the act of the employer in terminating his services and, therefore, accepted his termination. It is also held that a right not exercised for a long time is non-existent and even when there is no limitation period prescribed by any statute relating to certain proceedings; in such cases courts have coined the doctrine of laches and delay. The Supreme Court has asserted that the words "industrial dispute exists" are of paramount importance, unless there is an existence of an industrial dispute, no reference is to be made. Thus, it is held that an "existence or apprehension of an industrial dispute is a sine qua non for making the reference". Such existence/apprehension of industrial dispute, thus, becomes a condition precedent, though it will be only subjective satisfaction based on material on record."

6. The reasons supplied and approach adopted by learned single Judge in dismissing the petition could be said to be eminently legal and proper. No interference is called for.

5. In view of the aforesaid order passed by the Division Bench, we are also of the view that present appeal is required to be summarily dismissed. Accordingly, the appeal is dismissed summarily.

(VIPUL M. PANCHOLI, J)

(HEMANT M. PRACHCHHAK,J) LAVKUMAR J JANI