Gujarat High Court
Owner/Manager Varahi International vs Ishwarbhai Raijibhai Thakor on 26 June, 2025
NEUTRAL CITATION
C/SCA/14238/2022 JUDGMENT DATED: 26/06/2025
undefined
IN THE HIGH COURT OF GUJARAT AT AHMEDABAD
R/SPECIAL CIVIL APPLICATION NO. 14238 of 2022
With
CIVIL APPLICATION (FOR STAY) NO. 1 of 2025
In R/SPECIAL CIVIL APPLICATION NO. 14238 of 2022
FOR APPROVAL AND SIGNATURE:
HONOURABLE MRS. JUSTICE M. K. THAKKER
==========================================================
Approved for Reporting Yes No
✔
==========================================================
OWNER/MANAGER VARAHI INTERNATIONAL
Versus
ISHWARBHAI RAIJIBHAI THAKOR
==========================================================
Appearance:
RC JANI & ASSOCIATE(6436) for the Petitioner(s) No. 1
MS DIPMALA S DESAI(6596) for the Respondent(s) No. 1
==========================================================
CORAM:HONOURABLE MRS. JUSTICE M. K. THAKKER
Date : 26/06/2025
ORAL JUDGMENT
1. Rule returnable forthwith. Learned advocate Ms. Dipmala
Desai waives service of rule on behalf of the respondent.
2. With the consent of the parties, instead of deciding the
application for stay, this Court has proceeded to hear the main
matter on merits.
NEUTRAL CITATION
C/SCA/14238/2022 JUDGMENT DATED: 26/06/2025
undefined
3. The present petition is filed under Articles 226 and 227 of
the Constitution of India thereby challenging the award passed
by the learned Labour Court, Ahmedabad in Reference LCA
No.514 of 2014 passed below Exh.21 dated 18.04.2022 and the
order passed below Exh.9 dated 30.03.2016.
4. It is the case of the present petitioner that as per the
allegations made by the respondent in the statement of claim,
the respondent was serving with the petitioner - establishment
on the post of Peon / Helper since many years and he was getting
daily wages of Rs.225/-. It is alleged that the service of the
respondent was terminated on 11.01.2012. Challenging the
termination, the dispute was raised before the learned Assistant
Commissioner, which was ultimately culminated into the
reference, learned Reference Court has decided the reference in
favour of the respondent ex-parte as the petitioner -
establishment did not appear, though he received the notice.
Thereafter the restoration application came to be filed before
the leaned Labour Court under Rule 26A of the Industrial
Disputes Gujarat Act, seeking the condonation of delay of 3 years
and 3 months. Learned Reference Court has, after perusing the
NEUTRAL CITATION
C/SCA/14238/2022 JUDGMENT DATED: 26/06/2025
undefined
reasons for delay, has rejected the application for condonation of
delay vide order dated 18.04.2022, which is the subject matter of
challenge before this Court.
5. Heard learned advocate Mr. Jani for the petitioner and
learned advocate Ms. Desai for the respondent.
6. Learned advocate Mr. Jani has submitted that after ex-
parte award passed, the notice was received in the application
filed under Section 33(C)(1), being a Recovery Application No.68
of 2019 and on receiving the notice dated 06.02.2020, the
petitioner came into the knowledge with regard to the ex-parte
award. Learned advocate Mr. Jani submits that thereafter the
restoration application came to be filed on 15.10.2020. It
transpires that there was a delay of 7 months and 10 days, if it
would be counted from the date of knowledge. However, learned
Labour Court has come to the conclusion that there was a delay
of 3 years, 3 months and 11 days in filing the application and that
also remains unexplained. Learned advocate Mr. Jani submits
that so far as the merits of the case are concerned before the
learned Assistant Commissioner, when the hearing had taken
place, offer was made to the present respondent - employee to
NEUTRAL CITATION
C/SCA/14238/2022 JUDGMENT DATED: 26/06/2025
undefined
resume duty, which was recorded initially by the learned
Assistant Labour Commissioner and thereafter it was struck off.
However, learned Labour Court, without having considered the
above aspect, has awarded the reference in favour of the
respondent, therefore, the same is required to be interfered with
and the petition is required to be allowed.
7. Per contra, learned advocate Ms. Desai submits that as per
the allegations made by the present petitioner, the report
submitted by learned Assistant Labour Commissioner dated
16.06.2014 is alleging that there is a manipulation in the report.
Learned advocate Ms. Desai submits that learned Labour Court,
while rejecting the application for condonation of delay, has
concluded that this would not be allegations against the present
respondent, but the present petitioner had doubted on the
integrity of the learned Assistant Labour Commissioner without
any reasons. Learned advocate Ms. Desai submits that except this
ground, no other reasons are stated either in the application for
condonation of delay nor in the application for restoration.
Learned advocate Ms. Desai submits that with regard to the
merits of the case as also the petitioner is unable to point out any
NEUTRAL CITATION
C/SCA/14238/2022 JUDGMENT DATED: 26/06/2025
undefined
legal point suggesting that the respondent is not entitled for the
relief of reinstatement, which was awarded by the Reference
Court. Learned advocate Ms. Desai submits that though
reference order is passed on 30.03.2016, but after 9 years also,
the petitioner remained unsucceeded in getting the fruits of the
award. Learned advocate Ms. Desai submits that in view of above,
more particularly, in absence of any legal ground, the petition
deserves to be dismissed and the impugned order is required to
be upheld.
8. Having considered the arguments advanced by learned
advocates for the respective parties as well as on perusing the
records, which is part of the petition before this Court. It
emerges that on raising the dispute before learned Assistant
Commissioner, the dispute was referred to the learned Labour
Court to decide that whether the respondent is entitled for the
relief of reinstatement with back wages and all consequential
benefits or not. As per the claim of the respondent, he was
serving on the post of Peon / Helper and getting the monthly
wages of Rs.225/- per day and his service was terminated on
11.01.2012. It is observed by the learned Labour Court, while
NEUTRAL CITATION
C/SCA/14238/2022 JUDGMENT DATED: 26/06/2025
undefined
passing the award, that though the notice was served through
the Bailiff, however, the petitioner remained absent during the
proceeding before the learned Labour Court. In absence of the
petitioner, the learned Labour Court has awarded the reference
in favour of the respondent on 30.03.2016, granting the relief of
reinstatement with continuity and 100% back wages. Thereafter,
the application below Exh.1 came to be filed being the Delay
Condonation Application No.87 of 2020, seeking condonation of
delay in filing the application for restoration under Rule 26A of
the Industrial Disputes Gujarat Rules.
9. It is stated by the petitioner in the said application that the
petitioner came into the knowledge with regard to the impugned
award on receiving the notice of Recovery C-1 Application No.68
of 2019 and thereafter certified copy was applied on 29.09.2020,
which was received on 05.10.2020 and thereafter the application
came to be filed on 15.10.2020. It is contended by the present
petitioner that as from the date of knowledge, the delay of 7
months is caused, the same is required to be condoned. On
referring the application, which is part of the record, there was
no contention with regard to the application filed under Section
NEUTRAL CITATION
C/SCA/14238/2022 JUDGMENT DATED: 26/06/2025
undefined
33(C)(2), being Recovery Application No.534 of 2017. The
application being Recovery C-2 Application No.534 of 2017 was
filed on 09.05.2017 and the notice was issued by the learned
Court, was received by the present petitioner on 05.06.2017 and
the said recovery application was ordered in favour of the
present respondent on 28.09.2018. However, till date, though
petitioner was in the knowledge with regard to the impugned
award, has remained silent and only on receiving the copy of the
application filed under Section 33(C)(1), the restoration
application was filed along with condonation of delay application
thereto without disclosing the relevant facts of filing of
application under Section 33(C)(2). On referring the reasons
assigned for condonation of delay in the application, not only in-
sufficient, but not a word mentioned explaining the delay in
remaining the absent before the learned Labour Court or not
filing the restoration application in time. In absence of any
cogent and sufficient reasons, the condonation of delay cannot
be granted mechanically.
10. The guidelines issued by the Apex Court, while condoning
the delay, in the case of Pathapati Subba Reddy (Died) By Lrs
NEUTRAL CITATION
C/SCA/14238/2022 JUDGMENT DATED: 26/06/2025
undefined
And Vs Special Deputy Collector, reported in 2024 SCC OnLine
SC 513, is reproduced hereunder:
"***
(i) Law of limitation is based upon public policy that
there should be an end to litigation by forfeiting the
right to remedy rather than the right itself;
(ii) A right or the remedy that has not been exercised
or availed of for a long time must come to an end or
cease to exist after a fixed period of
time;
(iii) The provisions of the Limitation Act have to be
construed differently, such as Section 3 has to be
construed in a strict sense whereas Section 5 has to
be construed liberally;
(iv) In order to advance substantial justice, though
liberal approach, justice-oriented approach or cause
of substantial justice may be kept in mind but the
same cannot be used to defeat the substantial law of
limitation contained in Section 3 of the Limitation Act;
(v) Courts are empowered to exercise discretion to
condone the delay if sufficient cause had been
explained, but that exercise of power is discretionary
in nature and may not be exercised even if sufficient
cause is established for various factors such as, where
NEUTRAL CITATION
C/SCA/14238/2022 JUDGMENT DATED: 26/06/2025
undefined
there is inordinate delay, negligence and want of due
diligence;
(vi) Merely some persons obtained relief in similar
matter, it does not mean that others are also entitled
to the same benefit if the court is not satisfied with
the cause shown for the delay in filing the appeal;
(vii) Merits of the case are not required to be
considered in condoning the delay; and
(viii) Delay condonation application has to be decided
on the parameters laid down for condoning the delay
and condoning the delay for the reason that the
conditions have been imposed, tantamounts to
disregarding the statutory provision."
11. Having considered the ratio of above decision, this Court is
of the considered opinion that in absence of any genuine or
sufficient cause for not approaching to the Court in time, delay
cannot be condoned. Hence, the order passed by the learned
Labour Court does not required any interference with.
12. Resultantly, present petition is dismissed.
ORDER IN CIVIL APPLICATION (FOR STAY) NO. 1 of 2025
NEUTRAL CITATION
C/SCA/14238/2022 JUDGMENT DATED: 26/06/2025
undefined
In view of the order passed in the main matter, the
connected civil application does not survive and the same stands
disposed of accordingly.
(M. K. THAKKER,J)
Vikramsinh Amarsinh
