Gujarat High Court
Iron Build System Pvt Ltd vs Ashokbhai Nanjibhai Rohit on 7 February, 2025
NEUTRAL CITATION
C/SCA/1535/2025 JUDGMENT DATED: 07/02/2025
undefined
IN THE HIGH COURT OF GUJARAT AT AHMEDABAD
R/SPECIAL CIVIL APPLICATION NO. 1535 of 2025
FOR APPROVAL AND SIGNATURE:
HONOURABLE MRS. JUSTICE M. K. THAKKER
==========================================================
Approved for Reporting Yes No
No
==========================================================
IRON BUILD SYSTEM PVT LTD
Versus
ASHOKBHAI NANJIBHAI ROHIT
==========================================================
Appearance:
MR PRABHAKAR UPADYAY(1060) for the Petitioner(s) No. 1
==========================================================
CORAM:HONOURABLE MRS. JUSTICE M. K. THAKKER
Date : 07/02/2025
ORAL JUDGMENT
1. This petition is filed challenging the order passed by the
learned labour court below Exh.9 in Miscellaneous
Application No.1 of 2024 in Reference (LCA) No.24 of
2012 dated 09.10.2024 whereby, the application filed
under Rule 26(A) of the Gujarat Industrial Disputes for
restoration and condonation of delay of eight years and
six months came to be rejected and also challenged the
award passed by the learned labour court dated
06.04.2015 in Reference (LCA) No.24 of 2012 passed
below Exh.16, whereby, the petitioner was directed to
NEUTRAL CITATION
C/SCA/1535/2025 JUDGMENT DATED: 07/02/2025
undefined
reinstate the respondent with 20% back wages along
with all consequential benefits.
2. Heard learned advocate Mr.Upadhyay for the petitioner.
2.1. Learned advocate Mr.Upadhyay submits that learned
labour court has committed error in not condoning the
delay in filing the restoration application No.01 of 2024
as the notices which were issued in the main reference
was served and received by the employees who retired
long back from the company. Learned advocate
Mr.Upadhyay submits that as the petitioner was not
having the knowledge with regard to the pendency of
the proceedings, petitioner did not appear and the
award was passed ex-parte. Learned advocate
Mr.Upadhyay submits that after the award passed, the
respondent did not resume the duties on any occasion,
neither made any efforts for the same. Learned advocate
Mr.Upadhyay submits that though respondent was
offered the employment through the communication
dated 12.09.2023, 29.09.2023 and 21.10.2023, however,
instead of resuming the duties, the respondent has filed
the recovery application one after another.
2.2. Learned advocate Mr.Upadhyay submits that in
NEUTRAL CITATION
C/SCA/1535/2025 JUDGMENT DATED: 07/02/2025
undefined
absence of knowledge, the delay was caused in filing the
application for restoration, therefore, the prayer is made
to allow this petition by granting the application for
condonation of delay filed in restoration application No.
01 of 2024 and to restore the original reference and also
prayed to issued direction to decide the reference on its
merits. Learned advocate Mr.Upadhyay submits that in
absence of any cogent evidence, the learned labour
court has allowed the reference directing the present
petitioner to reinstate the respondent, therefore also
impugned order deserves to be set aside.
3. Considering the submissions made by the learned
advocate and considering the reasons assigned by the
learned reference court, it is undisputed fact that (1) the
present petitioner was represented in conciliation
proceedings through authorized Officer; (2) the
acknowledgment receipt produced below mark 12/1
suggests that the notice below Exh.2 is received by the
present petitioner, thereafter, again notice was issued
on 02.04.2014, directing the petitioner to file response
to the statement of claim which is also served to the
present petitioner; (3) award was passed in absence of
NEUTRAL CITATION
C/SCA/1535/2025 JUDGMENT DATED: 07/02/2025
undefined
the present petitioner ex-parte on 06.04.2015 in
reference application No. 24 of 2012; (4) The said award
was published on the notice board and through the
Bailiff, service of the impugned award was made on
28.05.2015; (5) Criminal case was filed being No.1588 of
2017 wherein, the petitioner appeared and has accepted
the guilt, and penalty was imposed which is also paid by
the petitioner. Despite the same, award was not
implemented, therefore recovery application being no.7
of 2020 came to be filed wherein, the petitioner has
represented through his advocate and the same was
ordered in favour of the respondent-employee.
3.1. Challenging the order passed in Recovery Application
no.7 of 2020, the petition came to be filed before this
Court being SCA No.10708 of 2022 which is pending
before this Court and no stay is granted by the court.
Subsequently another recovery application came to be
filed for the recovery of the dues for the period of
01.04.2020 to 31.03.2023 which was registered being
recovery application No.41 of 2023 which was also
allowed after hearing the parties including the learned
advocate for the petitioner on 24.06.2024.
NEUTRAL CITATION
C/SCA/1535/2025 JUDGMENT DATED: 07/02/2025
undefined
4. From the above undisputed fact, it emerges that though
the reference was awarded in favour of the respondent
in the year 2014, after eleven years also the respondent
could not reap the fruit of the above. The petitioner
awakened one morning and filed the restoration
application with delay condonation application of eight
years and six months. In absence of any satisfactory
reasons explaining the delay, the learned labour court
thought it fit to dismiss the same on the ground that the
petitioner was aware about the pendency of the
proceedings, however, only with a view to deprive the
benefits to the employees, not appeared before the
learned reference court and though appeared in
subsequent proceedings, not filed proceedings
challenging the impugned award in time.
5. In that view of the matter, this Court does not find any
infirmity in the impugned judgment, hence this petition
is dismissed.
6. Resultantly, this petition is dismissed.
(M. K. THAKKER,J)
NIVYA A. NAIR
