Gujarat High Court
Pravin Giradharlal Bhatia vs Government Of India on 11 November, 2025
Author: Bhargav D. Karia
Bench: Bhargav D. Karia
NEUTRAL CITATION
C/LPA/874/2025 ORDER DATED: 11/11/2025
undefined
IN THE HIGH COURT OF GUJARAT AT AHMEDABAD
R/LETTERS PATENT APPEAL NO. 874 of 2025
In
R/SPECIAL CIVIL APPLICATION NO. 14466 of 2014
================================================================
PRAVIN GIRADHARLAL BHATIA
Versus
GOVERNMENT OF INDIA & ORS.
================================================================
Appearance:
MS. SHIVANGI M RANA(7053) for the Appellant(s) No. 1
MR PRADIP D BHATE(1523) for the Respondent(s) No. 1,3
================================================================
CORAM:HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE BHARGAV D. KARIA
and
HONOURABLE MR.JUSTICE L. S. PIRZADA
Date : 11/11/2025
ORAL ORDER
(PER : HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE BHARGAV D. KARIA)
1. Heard learned advocate Ms.Shivangi M. Rana
for the appellant.
2.1. This Appeal is filed under Clause 15
of the Letters Patent, 1865 against the
Judgment and Order dated 18.09.2024 passed by
the learned Single Judge in Special Civil
Application No.14466 of 2014 wherein, the
appellant-original petitioner had challenged
the order dated 4th March, 2014 passed by the
Office of the Labour Commissioner refusing to
refer the matter to the Labour Court in view
NEUTRAL CITATION
C/LPA/874/2025 ORDER DATED: 11/11/2025
undefined
of the failure of the conciliation report
dated 29th May, 2012 as the petitioner did not
raise the dispute in time and it was delayed
by more than thirty years.
2.2. Learned Single Judge after considering
the facts of the case, held as under :
"7. I have heard the learned advocates
appearing for the respective parties
and perused the material placed on
record. From the bare perusal of the
record and the order passed by the
authority it appears that, infact
contrary stand is taken by the
petitioner. On one hand, he has
voluntarily tendered the resignation
and on the other hand, he is contending
that he was terminated by the
respondent authority, even in
representation also he himself has
stated that he had tendered voluntary
resignation and now in the petition, he
is contending that he was terminated,
therefore, from the bare perusal of the
NEUTRAL CITATION
C/LPA/874/2025 ORDER DATED: 11/11/2025
undefined
papers and the representation, there
are two contrary stand taken by the
present petitioner, even the action
taken by the respondent Department in
1982 was never challenged by the
petitioner till 2014 and therefore, by
making a representation, it cannot be
said that the period of limitation
cannot be stretched by way of making
representation / application before the
authority and here, it is now well
settled by a series of judgments of
this Court that the period of
limitation to be considered from the
date of action taken by the authority
and therefore, under such
circumstances, the order passed by the
respondent authority is absolutely just
and proper and in consideration of the
facts of the present case.
7.1 The contention raised by the
learned advocate for the petitioner
with regard to not giving an
opportunity of hearing is concerned,
the same shall not come to the rescue
NEUTRAL CITATION
C/LPA/874/2025 ORDER DATED: 11/11/2025
undefined
of the present petitioner since from
1982 to 2014, the petitioner had never
raised this contention and not
approached the concerned authority by
way of preferring any proceedings and
only in 2014, the petition was filed
before this Court and that was also
withdrawn without there being any
liberty and thereafter, the present
petition was filed to challenge the
order and therefore, it cannot be said
that it was without hearing and without
following the principles of natural
justice. It is pertinent to note herein
that though at the time of admission,
the contention raised by the respondent
department with regard to the
maintainability was not decided but, as
it is an undisputed fact that the
petitioner was working with the postal
department and the appropriate
Government is the Central Government
and therefore, the appropriate
authority before whom the reference can
be raised or action can be challenged
is the Central Administrative Tribunal
NEUTRAL CITATION
C/LPA/874/2025 ORDER DATED: 11/11/2025
undefined
and even there is a gross delay of
about 32 years in preferring the
proceedings before this Court and there
are number of judgments of the Hon'ble
Apex Court that while raising the
dispute if there is a delay though the
delay is not prescribed under the I.D.
Act, it can be considered by the
competent court by way of entertaining
the petition after considering the
merits of the matter and herein the
present case, the action impugned of
1982 was challenged in 2014 and there
was a gross delay of 32 years and there
was no satisfactory explanation
tendered by the petitioner, merely by
making a representation, the delay
cannot be stretched, and therefore, the
impugned action taken by the respondent
authority cannot be interfered with at
this stage by exercising powers under
Article 226 & 227 of the Constitution
of India. Fir issuance of writ of
certiorari, there is a restriction on
the jurisdiction conferred to the High
Court and under such circumstances,
NEUTRAL CITATION
C/LPA/874/2025 ORDER DATED: 11/11/2025
undefined
while exercising such jurisdiction, the
court has to take proper and diligent
caution while entertaining the petition."
3. We have perused the material placed on
record along with the Special Civil
Application, however, in view of the
resignation tendered by the appellant-original
petitioner and approaching the respondent
after delay of about thirty two years in
preferring the proceedings, we are of the
opinion that there is no case made out by the
appellant to interfere in the undisputed facts
of the case. We are in complete agreement with
the reasons assigned by the learned Single
Judge.
4. The Appeal therefore, being devoid of any
merit is accordingly rejected.
(BHARGAV D. KARIA, J)
(L. S. PIRZADA, J)
PALAK
