Gujarat High Court
Santram Ramsingh Yadav And Other ... vs Shri Manager, Khodal Corporation on 9 April, 2025
NEUTRAL CITATION
C/SCA/9039/2022 JUDGMENT DATED: 09/04/2025
undefined
IN THE HIGH COURT OF GUJARAT AT AHMEDABAD
R/SPECIAL CIVIL APPLICATION NO. 9039 of 2022
With
R/SPECIAL CIVIL APPLICATION NO. 9074 of 2022
With
R/SPECIAL CIVIL APPLICATION NO. 9275 of 2022
With
R/SPECIAL CIVIL APPLICATION NO. 9381 of 2022
With
R/SPECIAL CIVIL APPLICATION NO. 9384 of 2022
FOR APPROVAL AND SIGNATURE:
HONOURABLE MRS. JUSTICE M. K. THAKKER
==========================================================
Approved for Reporting Yes No
✔
==========================================================
SANTRAM RAMSINGH YADAV AND OTHER EMPLOYEES THROUGH
UNION , SATYAVAN NADESAN ADISHWAR
Versus
SHRI MANAGER, KHODAL CORPORATION & ORS.
==========================================================
Appearance:
SINGHI & CO(2725) for the Petitioner(s) No. 1
MR ARPIT P PATEL(5497) for the Respondent(s) No. 1
MR HARSHEEL D SHUKLA(6158) for the Respondent(s) No. 2,3
NOTICE SERVED for the Respondent(s) No. 4,5
==========================================================
CORAM:HONOURABLE MRS. JUSTICE M. K. THAKKER
Date : 09/04/2025
COMMON ORAL JUDGMENT
1. Rule returnable forthwith. Learned advocates waive service
of rule on behalf of the respective respondents.
NEUTRAL CITATION
C/SCA/9039/2022 JUDGMENT DATED: 09/04/2025
undefined
2. This petition is filed under Articles 226 and 227 of the
Constitution of India, thereby challenging the order passed by
the learned District Court, Surendranagar, in Regular Civil Appeal
No.30 of 2021 dated 30.03.2022, in which the application
preferred by the present petitioner for condonation of delay in
filing claim under the Payment of Wages Act, 1936 is rejected.
3. It is case of the present petitioners that petitioners were
employed by the respondent No.1 for construction of the station
building, S&T structures, toilet blocks, platform walls, platform
surfacing, covering sheds, earthwork in bank and cuttings for
platforms, water supply arrangements, retaining walls at
stations, construction of duty bunk at Lcs, dismantling of various
existing structures and other incidental works between stations
Khareshwar (Excl.) to Lilapur (incl.). It is further case of the
present petitioners that after working for 5 years for 12 hours in
a day with an over time of four hours, their services were orally
discontinued without payment of wages for the preceding two
months (in Special Civil Application No.9039 of 2022 9384 of
2022) and also preceding three months (in Special Civil
Application Nos.9074 of 2022, 9275 of 2022 and 9381 of 2022)
NEUTRAL CITATION
C/SCA/9039/2022 JUDGMENT DATED: 09/04/2025
undefined
before discontinuation. The application, under Section 152, was
preferred for payment of wages on 13.11.2020 on behalf of the
20 - workmen along with an application for condonation of delay,
the learned Authority has rejected the said condonation of delay
application on 30.09.2021, against which appeal came to be
preferred before learned District Court, Surendranagar on
29.10.2021, the said appeal also came to be rejected and
therefore, present petition is filed.
4. Heard learned advocate Mr. Joshi for the petitioner and
learned advocate Mr. Patel for the respondent No.1. Though, this
Court has waited for learned advocate Mr. Shukla appearing for
respondent Nos.2 and 3, however, in the second round also,
learned advocate Mr. Shukla is absent.
5. Learned advocate Mr. Joshi submits that on being
terminated from the service on 21.02.2016, the worker has
demanded the wages orally, however, the assurance was given by
the principal employer as well as the contractor for payment of
the wages, as thereafter, the petitioners have not been paid any
wages, the application was filed under Section 15 of the Payment
of Wages Act. Learned advocate Mr. Joshi submits that as per the
NEUTRAL CITATION
C/SCA/9039/2022 JUDGMENT DATED: 09/04/2025
undefined
limitation provided under the Act, the application has to be filed
within a period of 12 months, which is completed on 21.02.2017,
however, due to the assurance given by the respondent as well as
Covid Pandemic, the same could not be filed till 13.11.2020.
Learned advocate Mr. Joshi submits that against the exploitation
of the workers, the enactment, under the Payment of Wages Act
was made, therefore, instead of deciding the case on merits, the
learned Authority has rejected the application for condonation of
delay and therefore, the impugned order deserves to be
interfered with and petition is required to be allowed.
6. As against the same, learned advocate Mr. Patel appearing
for the respondent No.1 has submitted that without explaining
the delay, the application was filed claiming the wages of 20
workers. Learned advocate Mr. Patel submits that under the
statute, only if sufficient ground is made out then only the
authority has to condone the delay and the claim has to be
decided on merits. Learned advocate Mr. Patel submits that in
absence of any cogent and sufficient reasons, no error has been
committed by the learned Authority in rejecting the application
for condonation of delay and therefore, this petition deserves to
NEUTRAL CITATION
C/SCA/9039/2022 JUDGMENT DATED: 09/04/2025
undefined
be dismissed.
7. Having considered the arguments made by the learned
advocates and the reasons assigned by the learned Authority, it
emerges that as per the statement made by the respondent in
the affidavit filed before this Court, It is undisputed fact that the
workers were engaged by the respondent No.1 for construction
of various works. As per the averments of the affidavit, the said
work is completed on 19.11.2013, the petitioner raised the
dispute that the payment of wages has not been made before
the termination order is passed. It emerges from the record that
the claim is made that without payment of wages for two
preceding months of termination, the services were orally
terminated, this Court is of the view that the enactment of
payment of wages is made only with an object to raise the
grievance against the exploitation of the workers and the
explanation, which was offered in the application that despite
various demands, no payment is made and the under false
assurance, they had made to wait for 5 years. In addition to that,
it is also stated that during the interregnum period, there was
Covid Pandemic and that was also reason for not approaching to
NEUTRAL CITATION
C/SCA/9039/2022 JUDGMENT DATED: 09/04/2025
undefined
the Court in time, this Court is of the view that the said
explanation is sufficient and genuine explanation and therefore,
instead of dismissing the claim on the technical ground, the
learned Authority ought to have been decided the claim on
merits.
8. Resultantly, this petition is allowed.
9. Learned Labour Court at Surendranagar is directed to
decide the case on merits without being prejudiced by any
observations made by this Court in the order. It is needless to
clarify that this Court has not entered into the merits of the case.
All rights are kept open for both the parties which learned
Labour Court shell decide in accordance with law.
Rule is made absolute.
(M. K. THAKKER,J)
Vikramsinh Amarsinh
