Gujarat High Court
Tavdi Gram Panchayat vs Lhs Of Decd. Valabhai Sursinhgbhai ... on 10 July, 2025
NEUTRAL CITATION
C/CA/825/2025 ORDER DATED: 10/07/2025
undefined
IN THE HIGH COURT OF GUJARAT AT AHMEDABAD
R/CIVIL APPLICATION (FOR CONDONATION OF DELAY) NO. 825 of
2025
In F/FIRST APPEAL NO. 12481 of 2024
================================================================
TAVDI GRAM PANCHAYAT
Versus
LHS OF DECD. VALABHAI SURSINHGBHAI DAMOR & ORS.
================================================================
Appearance:
MR. HJ KARATHIYA(7012) for the Applicant(s) No. 1
MR. ANANTANAND J SINGH(10046) for the Respondent(s) No. 1.1
NOTICE SERVED for the Respondent(s) No. 1.2,1.3,2
PRABHATSINH J PARMAR(7996) for the Respondent(s) No. 1.1
================================================================
CORAM:HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE DEVAN M. DESAI
Date : 10/07/2025
ORAL ORDER
1. This application is filed under Section 5 of the
Limitation Act, 1963 for condonation of delay of 891 days in
preferring the instant appeal.
2. Heard learned advocate Mr. H. J. Karathiya for the
applicant and learned advocate Mr. Anantanand J. Singh for
respondent No.1.1. Though served, none appeared for
respondent Nos.1.2, 1.3 and 2.
3. It is contended by learned advocate for the applicant that
the present applicant has challenged the judgment and decree
NEUTRAL CITATION
C/CA/825/2025 ORDER DATED: 10/07/2025
undefined
dated 07.09.2021 passed by learned Commissioner Employees
Compensation Act, Labour Court, Dahod in Workmen
Compensation (Fatal) No.261 of 2008 (Old Workmen
Compensation (Fatal) Application No.63 of 2007). It is also
contended that recovery certificate is also issued on
12.04.2023. It is also contended that the notices of the
proceedings though served twice, the Ex-Sarpanch of the
Gram Panchayat never placed notices on record of the Gram
Panchayat and therefore, applicant was not aware about the
proceedings initiated by respondent No.2. It is further
contended that the original claimant preferred a petition being
Special Civil Application No.16903 of 2023 for seeking
direction for implementation of the recovery certificate issued
on 12.04.2023. Upon receipt of the notice issued by this Court,
the applicant came to know that the order dated 07.09.2021
has been passed against the applicant as well as against the
opponent No.2 herein. It is contended that thereafter, the
NEUTRAL CITATION
C/CA/825/2025 ORDER DATED: 10/07/2025
undefined
certified copy of the impugned judgment and award was
applied on 16.01.2024 which was received on 23.01.2024. In
April 2024, the District Development Officer granted
permission to file an appeal and thereafter, the present appeal
came to be filed. It is further contended that there is no
negligence on the part of the applicant in not challenging the
impugned judgment and award within the period of limitation.
It is further contended that for want of knowledge, the
applicant did not remain present and contest the application. It
is contended that for the negligence of the Ex-Sarpanch,
applicant may not suffer. It is further contended that
explanation which has been advanced in the application is
sufficient for condoning the delay.
3.1. In support of his submissions, learned advocate for the
applicant has placed reliance upon the decision in the case of
Girja Shankar Uday Bhan Patel versus Murtaben
Laltaprasad Suthar & Anr. delivered on 10.06.2025 in
NEUTRAL CITATION
C/CA/825/2025 ORDER DATED: 10/07/2025
undefined
R/Civil Application (For Condonation of Delay) No.3775 of
2024 in F/First Appeal No.20171 of 2024 and contended that
this Court, while taking a lenient view, has condoned the delay
of 530 days in preferring the appeal.
4. Per contra, learned advocate for the original applicant-
present respondent-opponent No.1 has objected by making a
submission that though the notices were served twice in the
proceedings, the applicant remained negligent and did not
contest the application. Even opponent No.2 has refused to
accept notice which was issued by the learned Labour Court.
Considering the material available on record, learned Labour
Court allowed the application on 07.09.2021 by directing the
present applicant and respondent No.2 jointly and severally to
pay compensation of Rs.3,16,365/- with cost and other
benefits with interest at the rate of 12% per annum. It is
further contended that explanations canvassed by the applicant
are not sufficient for condoning a delay of huge period. It is
NEUTRAL CITATION
C/CA/825/2025 ORDER DATED: 10/07/2025
undefined
contended that the certified copy of the impugned judgment
and award was applied on 16.01.2024 which is after the period
of limitation has expired. It is further pointed out by
respondent that Co-ordinate Bench of this Court by way of an
order dated 25.04.2025 has observed that time was taken by
learned advcoate for applicant to ascertain a fact that whether
any complaint or steps are taken against the Ex-Sarpanch or
not.
5. In re-joinder, upon instructions, learned advocate for the
applicant submitted that no steps or complaint has been taken
against the Ex-Sarpanch.
6. No other submissions are made by learned advocates for
the parties.
7. Having considered the submissions made by learned
advocates for the parties and having perused the averments
made in the application, it appears that the original claimants
who have lost their son who was serving as a driver in Tractor
NEUTRAL CITATION
C/CA/825/2025 ORDER DATED: 10/07/2025
undefined
bearing Registration No.GJ-8B-5562 and was in the
employment of original opponent No.1 filed claim application.
When notice of the claim application was served upon original
opponent No.1, the same came to be refused. So far as the
notice qua present applicant is concerned, it is an admitted
fact that the notice of the application was served to the present
applicant twice. However, the Ex-Sarpanch of the Gram
Panchyat did not place it on record and the claim petition had
proceeded undefended.
8. The position of law is settled that while deciding an
application for condonation of delay a lenient view is to be
taken. However, the explanation put forward by the applicant
for condoning delay cannot be ignored while taking a lenient
view. When applicant was served twice in the original
proceedings, applicant remained absent and did not contest the
application. It appears from the application that when the
original claimant approached this Court by way of a Special
NEUTRAL CITATION
C/CA/825/2025 ORDER DATED: 10/07/2025
undefined
Civil Application No.16903 of 2023 seeking direction for
implementation of the recovery certificate issued on
12.04.2023, applicant came to know about order being passed
by learned Labour Court on 07.09.2021. When a specific stand
has been taken by the applicant that Ex-Sarpanch did not place
the notice on record of the Gram Panchayat, it is sheer
negligence on the part of the Ex-Sarpanch. The more annoying
fact which has been brought on record by way of a submission
that no action or steps have been taken against the erring Ex-
Sarpanch which speaks volumes. If the applicant-Gram
Panchayat is shielding an erring Ex-Sarpanch, no leniency can
be shown to the applicant-Gram Panchayat in condoning
delay. Even by way of imposing cost, also such negligence
can't be brushed aside. The explanation does not inspire any
confidence and the fact remained on record that the applicant-
Gram Panchayat has also remained negligent in not taking any
action against the erring officer. Moreover, the liability of
NEUTRAL CITATION
C/CA/825/2025 ORDER DATED: 10/07/2025
undefined
applicant is joint and several as directed by learned Labour
Court. The applicant can pay the amount of compensation and
then recover the same from co-opponent or from erring Ex-
Sarpanch, if permissible under the law. I am of the view that
reasons assigned in the application do not warrant any
sympathy and in the totality of the facts and circumstances of
the case, explanation which has been given by the applicant do
not sound sufficient. Resultantly, the application stands
dismissed.
(D. M. DESAI,J)
RINKU MALI
