Gujarat High Court
Shri Gulabbhai M. Patel vs Gsrtc , Valsad on 27 June, 2025
NEUTRAL CITATION
C/SCA/5086/2025 JUDGMENT DATED: 27/06/2025
undefined
IN THE HIGH COURT OF GUJARAT AT AHMEDABAD
R/SPECIAL CIVIL APPLICATION NO. 5086 of 2025
FOR APPROVAL AND SIGNATURE:
HONOURABLE MRS. JUSTICE M. K. THAKKER
==========================================================
Approved for Reporting Yes No
NO
==========================================================
SHRI GULABBHAI M. PATEL
Versus
GSRTC , VALSAD
==========================================================
Appearance:
ANURADHA G RATHOD(7717) for the Petitioner(s) No. 1
MR GK RATHOD(2386) for the Petitioner(s) No. 1
MR HS MUNSHAW(495) for the Respondent(s) No. 1
==========================================================
CORAM:HONOURABLE MRS. JUSTICE M. K. THAKKER
Date : 27/06/2025
ORAL JUDGMENT
1. Rule, returnable forthwith. Learned advocate
Mr.Munshaw waives service of notice of Rule on
behalf of the respondent No.1.
2. This petition is filed under Articles 226 and 227 of the
Constitution of India challenging the award dated
07.12.2022 passed by the Industrial Tribunal, Surat in
Reference (IT) No.43 of 2016 whereby the Reference
NEUTRAL CITATION
C/SCA/5086/2025 JUDGMENT DATED: 27/06/2025
undefined
filed by the present petitioner challenging the order
of punishment for stoppage of four increments with
future effect came to be upheld and Reference came
to be dismissed.
3. It is the case of the present petitioner that he was
serving with the respondent corporation as a
conductor, and on 27.07.2007, while he was on duty
on the route from Shirdi to Nehrunagar, his bus was
checked at Saputara. During the inspection, the
checking inspector found that two passengers were
traveling without tickets from Nasik to Samgahan.
Though they had paid a fare of Rs.152 to the
conductor, he had not issued any tickets to them up
to the point of checking. Consequently, the
corporation issued a chargesheet on 19.09.2007, and
thereafter, a departmental inquiry was conducted,
wherein the charges were held to be proved.
3.1. Pursuant to the inquiry, an order was passed on
28.02.2008 imposing the penalty of withholding
four increments with future effect. The said order
was challenged in a Reference before the learned
Tribunal in the year 2016, after a delay of seven
years.
3.2. The learned Reference Court, after considering
NEUTRAL CITATION
C/SCA/5086/2025 JUDGMENT DATED: 27/06/2025
undefined
the submissions of both parties and the evidence
adduced, held that, in view of the delay of seven
years in filing the Reference, the Reference was
liable to be rejected. Accordingly, the Reference
was dismissed, which is the subject matter of
challenge before this Court.
4. Heard learned advocate Ms.Rathod for the petitioner
and learned advocate Mr.Munshaw for the
respondent-corproation.
5. Learned advocate Ms. Rathod submits that the
punishment imposed is in the nature of a recurring
loss, and therefore, the relief prayed for could not
have been denied solely on the ground of delay.
Learned advocate Ms. Rathod further submits that
the departmental proceedings were initiated and
concluded solely on the basis of the evidence of the
inquiry officer, and accordingly, the same ought to
have been interfered with by the learned Tribunal.
However, instead of examining the case on merits,
the learned Tribunal dismissed the Reference. In this
background, learned advocate Ms.Rathod submits
that the petition deserves to be allowed by setting
aside the impugned award.
6. Per contra, learned advocate Mr. Munshaw appearing
NEUTRAL CITATION
C/SCA/5086/2025 JUDGMENT DATED: 27/06/2025
undefined
for the Corporation submits that the order of
punishment was passed in the year 2008, whereas
the Reference was filed in the year 2016 and the
statement of claim was filed on 06.10.2017, after a
delay of seven years. Learned advocate Mr. Munshaw
submits that though a departmental appeal against
the punishment in Default Case No.125 of 2007 was
available, no such appeal was filed by the petitioner
before the competent authority. Learned advocate
Mr. Munshaw further submits that, as recorded in the
petitioner's default card, there were in all 20 defaults
during his service, out of which four were in relation
to misappropriation of Corporation funds. Learned
advocate Mr. Munshaw submits that considering the
habitual nature of the petitioner's misconduct, as
well as the inordinate delay in filing the Reference,
the learned Tribunal has rightly dismissed the
Reference after taking into consideration various
decisions. Therefore, no interference is warranted,
and the petition is required to be dismissed.
7. Having considered the arguments advanced by the
learned advocates for the respective parties and on
perusing the reasons assigned by the learned
Tribunal, it emerges that the departmental inquiry
was initiated by issuance of the chargesheet bearing
No.125 of 2007, which culminated in the imposition
NEUTRAL CITATION
C/SCA/5086/2025 JUDGMENT DATED: 27/06/2025
undefined
of the punishment of stoppage of four increments
with future effect. The order of punishment was
passed on 28.02.2008; however, no departmental
appeal was preferred by the petitioner. The dispute
came to be raised before the learned Tribunal only
after a lapse of seven years. The learned Reference
Court, after referring to various decisions of the
Hon'ble Apex Court as well as this Court, has rightly
concluded that the Reference is liable to be rejected
on the ground of inordinate delay.
8. This Court has also referred to the decision rendered
by the Division Bench of this Court in Letters Patent
Appeal No.1147 of 2018, whereby the Division Bench
dismissed the appeal filed by the employee,
observing as under:
"4. The undisputed fact is that the competent authority
has passed the punishment order dated 17.06.1999
imposing punishment of stoppage of three increments
with future effect on the present appeal, which was
subsequently taken in review vide order dated
25.01.2000, the punishment of stoppage of four
increments came to be imposed. The appellant-
workman approached the Industrial Tribunal, after the
delay of 14 years in the year 2014.
***
7. The learned Single Judge, after observing that there
was delay of 14 years in raising the dispute, has
observed thus:
NEUTRAL CITATION
C/SCA/5086/2025 JUDGMENT DATED: 27/06/2025
undefined
"4.3 The issue is covered by the decisions of the
Supreme Court of India in the case of Assistant
Engineer, Rajasthan State Agriculture Marketing
Board, Sub Division, Kota V/s. Mohan Lal reported
in (2013) 14 SCC 543 and in the case of Prabhakar
versus Joint Director, Sericulture Department
reported in (2015) 15 SCC 1. Reference also needs to
be made to the decision of this Court recorded on
Special Civil Application No.12117 of 2016 and
cognate matters dated 18.08.2017.
4.4 In view of the above legal position, the dispute
raised by the respondent in the year 2014 cannot be
termed as a live dispute and therefore the Reference
ought not to have been entertained on merits.
Having held that there was delay on the part of the
respondent, the impugned award needs not to be
quashed and set aside."
8. The Division Bench of this court in
the judgment dated 21.06.2018, passed in
Letters Patent Appeal No.430 of 2018 in
Special Application No.13753 of 2017 in light
of the decision rendered by the Apex Court in
the case of Prabhakar vs. Joint Director,
Sericulture and Anr., reported in (2015) 15
S.C.C. 1, has held that no relief can be
granted to a workman, who has raised the
demand after considerable period of time. It
was observed by the Division Bench that, if
there is no agitation by the workman and the
dispute is raised belatedly and the delay or
laches remain unexplained, it would be
presumed that he had waived his right or
acquiesced the same and the same cannot be
termed as an "existing dispute".
NEUTRAL CITATION
C/SCA/5086/2025 JUDGMENT DATED: 27/06/2025
undefined
9. So far the contention raised by Mr.Songara,
learned advocate for the appellant regarding
delay in raising the reference cannot be raised
at this stage, the same does not merit
acceptance in light of the following
observations made by the Division Bench in
the judgment dated 21.06.2018:
"17. As regard the contention
raised by the learned advocate for
the appellant that since the
respondent had not resisted the
reference at the relevant point of
time, it would not be open for
the respondent to raise the issue
of delay at this stage is
concerned, in our opinion, the
same deserves to be rejected in
view of the observations made by
the Apex Court in the case of
Prabhakar (supra), wherein it is
held that "In contrast, in those
cases, where there was no
agitation by the workman against
his termination and the dispute is
raised belatedly and the delay or
laches remain unexplained, it
would be presumed that he had
waived his right or acquiesced in
to the act of termination and
therefore, at the time when the
dispute is raised it had become
stale and was not an "existing
dispute". In such circumstances,
the appropriate Government can
refuse to make reference. In the
NEUTRAL CITATION
C/SCA/5086/2025 JUDGMENT DATED: 27/06/2025
undefined
alternative, the Labour Court /
Industrial Tribunal can also hold
that there is no "industrial
dispute" within the meaning of
Section 2(k) of the Act and
therefore, no relief can be
granted. Thus, there is no bar on
the Labour Court / Industrial
Tribunal in examining whether
there is an industrial dispute in
existence even if the employer
fails to challenge the reference at
the relevant time. The issue of
raising an industrial dispute by
the workman and the reference by
the appropriate Government on a
stale or a nonexistence dispute
can always be scrutinized and
examined by the Labour Court /
Industrial Tribunal and the same
is amenable to judicial review.
Thus, in the opinion of this Court,
in the present case, the Labour
Court and the learned Single
Judge have not committed any
illegality or indiscretion by
rejecting the reference on the
ground of delay and laches. In
light of the law enunciated by the
Apex Court in the case of
Prabhakar (supra), we are not
inclined to deal with the
judgments cited at the bar."
9. In the considered opinion of this Court, the learned
Reference Court has not committed any error in
dismissing the Reference on the ground of delay, as
NEUTRAL CITATION
C/SCA/5086/2025 JUDGMENT DATED: 27/06/2025
undefined
the order of punishment was challenged after a lapse
of seven years without any explanation for such
delay. In the absence of any plausible justification
and in view of the fact that the petitioner did not
challenge the order in a timely manner, it can
reasonably be presumed that the employee has
either waived his right or acquiesced to the
punishment imposed. In this background, the dispute
raised by the petitioner becomes stale and cannot be
treated as an live industrial dispute.
10. In view of the foregoing observations, this Court
is of the considered opinion that the impugned order
does not call for any interference. Accordingly, the
petition stands dismissed.
(M. K. THAKKER,J)
M.M.MIRZA
