Patel Haribhai Mangaldas vs Manglam Alloys Pvt. Ltd
2023 Latest Caselaw 7686 Guj

                                                                              NEUTRAL CITATION




     C/LPA/1264/2023                          ORDER DATED: 17/10/2023

                                                                               undefined




           IN THE HIGH COURT OF GUJARAT AT AHMEDABAD
             R/LETTERS PATENT APPEAL NO. 1264 of 2023
          In R/SPECIAL CIVIL APPLICATION NO. 21243 of 2017
==============================================================
                       PATEL HARIBHAI MANGALDAS
                                 Versus
                        MANGLAM ALLOYS PVT. LTD.
==============================================================
Appearance:
NAMAN H KINKHABWALA(8831) for the Appellant(s) No. 1
for the Respondent(s) No. 1,2
==============================================================
 CORAM:HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE N.V.ANJARIA
       and
       HONOURABLE MS. JUSTICE NISHA M. THAKORE
                   Date : 17/10/2023
                     ORAL ORDER

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

Heard learned advocate Ms. Nidhi Trivedi for learned advocate Mr.Naman Kinkhabwala for the appellant.

2. While upholding the judgment and award of the Labour Court, Kalol, dated 12.06.2017 and resultantly confirming the denial of back wages to the appellant workman, the reasons supplied by learned Single Judge in his impugned order dated 27.07.2022 for dismissing the petition, are eminently just and proper.

3. It is conspicuous to notice that the termination of the services of the appellant -workman was in the year 1995. He invoked the jurisdiction of the Labour Court after passage of long eight years. The industrial dispute was raised in 2003. Not only that, after approaching the Labour Court, the statement of claim was filed after a gap of four years.

NEUTRAL CITATION

C/LPA/1264/2023 ORDER DATED: 17/10/2023

undefined

4. Even as learned advocate for the appellant attempted in vain to explain the passage of eight years, the delay is too long to be countenanced. It is indeed a relevant consideration at least for the purpose of considering the claim of back wages. The delay of four years in filing the claim statement before the Labour Court shows the lethargy and lack of interest on part of the workman in asserting his claim. This also would be a germane consideration for denying back wages.

5. It is these reasons which have weighed with the learned Single Judge to confirm the judgment and award of Labour Court. The appellant- petitioner is rightly held not entitled to any back wages.

6. This Court does not see any reason whatsoever to exercise the jurisdiction under Letters Patent to interfere with the order of learned Single Judge, which book no error.

7. The appeal is dismissed.

(N.V.ANJARIA, J)

(NISHA M. THAKORE,J) KAUSHIK J. RATHOD