Gujarat High Court
Ad-Manum Finance Ltd vs Koshthi Hiralal Nimailal on 9 September, 2025
NEUTRAL CITATION
C/SCA/19739/2022 JUDGMENT DATED: 09/09/2025
undefined
IN THE HIGH COURT OF GUJARAT AT AHMEDABAD
R/SPECIAL CIVIL APPLICATION NO. 19739 of 2022
FOR APPROVAL AND SIGNATURE:
HONOURABLE MRS. JUSTICE M. K. THAKKER
==========================================================
Approved for Reporting Yes No
==========================================================
AD-MANUM FINANCE LTD.
Versus
KOSHTHI HIRALAL NIMAILAL
==========================================================
Appearance:
MR YOGEN N PANDYA(5766) for the Petitioner(s) No. 1
MS. DHARTI P RATANI(8870) for the Respondent(s) No. 1
==========================================================
CORAM:HONOURABLE MRS. JUSTICE M. K. THAKKER
Date : 09/09/2025
ORAL JUDGMENT
1. This petition is filed under Articles 226 and 227 of the
Constitution of India, challenging the order passed by the
learned Labour Court, Ahmedabad, dated 18.05.2022, by which
the application for condonation of delay in filing the restoration
application came to be rejected.
2. It is the case of the present petitioner that the respondent
has filed an application being Payment of Wages Application
No.202 of 2015 under the Payment of Wages Act, before the
NEUTRAL CITATION
C/SCA/19739/2022 JUDGMENT DATED: 09/09/2025
undefined
learned Authority, Ahmedabad for recovery of dues to the tune
of Rs.55,800/- for the period starting from October, 2014 to
March, 2015. The petitioner herein appeared before the learned
Court and submitted that the petitioner was transferred to the
Himmatnagar Branch; however, he did not resume duty at the
said Branch. The wages, which are sought to have been paid, the
respondent did not work and therefore, he is not entitled to
further wages. The petitioner has produced documentary
evidence on record below Exhs. 8/1, 8/2 and 11/1 to substantiate
the defence of transfer. However, thereafter the petitioner has
not been represented. Therefore, the learned Court, believing
the case of the present respondent, has passed an order
directing the present petitioner to pay an amount of Rs. 55,800/-
towards wages for the period from October, 2014 to March,
2015. Challenging the said order, an application for restoration
was filed along with the application for condonation of delay,
being Application No.04 of 2021, seeking the condonation of
delay of 3 years on the ground that the concerned advocate
neither appeared nor informed with regard to the final order. On
the initiation of recovery proceedings, the petitioner came into
the knowledge with regard to the impugned order. Thereafter,
NEUTRAL CITATION
C/SCA/19739/2022 JUDGMENT DATED: 09/09/2025
undefined
due to the COVID-19 Pandemic, he could not file the application
for restoration in time and therefore, the delay of 3 years sought
to be condoned. The learned Court, vide its order dated
18.05.2022, has dismissed the said application on the ground that
though the order was passed on 04.06.2018, the application was
filed on 11.08.2021 without providing any sufficient cause. The
same is the subject matter of challenge before this Court.
3. Heard learned advocate Mr. Pandya for the petitioner and
learned advocate Ms. Ratani for the respondent.
4. Learned advocate Mr. Pandya submits that the respondent
was transferred to the Himmatnagar Branch on 20.08.2014 and
as he did not resume duty at the said place, nor he has worked at
the transferred place, no payment of wages is required to be
made. Learned advocate Mr. Pandya submits that, except for
bare words and a self-serving affidavit, no other documentary
evidence was placed on record to substantiate the claim before
the learned Labour Court. Learned advocate Mr. Pandya submits
that the learned Court has committed an error in shifting the
onus on the present petitioner to prove the case of the
respondent and therefore, the impugned order dated
NEUTRAL CITATION
C/SCA/19739/2022 JUDGMENT DATED: 09/09/2025
undefined
04.06.2018, granting the benefit of wages for the period from
October, 2014 to March, 2015, is required to be interfered with.
Learned advocate Mr. Pandya submits that the petitioner came
into the knowledge with regard to the order passed by the
learned Labour Court on filing the recovery application by the
present respondent. It is contended before the learned Labour
Court that the address, which is stated before the learned Labour
Court that office had been closed and though he was
represented through a concerned advocate, the advocate did not
inform him with regard to the order passed. Learned advocate
Mr. Pandya submits that immediately thereafter, due to COVID-
19 situation, he could not file the application for restoration
along with the condonation of delay immediately. However, on
11.08.2021, after getting a certified copy from the concerned
Court, the application was filed, which was rejected. Learned
advocate Mr. Pandya submits that even if the petitioner did not
appear or did not lead any evidence, it is the bounden duty of the
learned Court to examine the case on the basis of the evidence
adduced by the respondent to prove his case. Learned advocate
Mr. Pandya submits that in absence of the same, the learned
Labour Court has committed an error in rejecting the application
NEUTRAL CITATION
C/SCA/19739/2022 JUDGMENT DATED: 09/09/2025
undefined
for condonation of delay and therefore, the impugned order
deserves to be set aside and the present petition is required to
be allowed.
5. Per-contra, learned advocate Ms. Ratani submits that
though sufficient opportunity was granted to the present
petitioner to appear before the learned Labour Court, the
petitioner did not appear nor lead any evidence to rebut the
claim of the present respondent. Learned advocate Ms. Ratani
submits that in absence of any contest, the learned Court is
justifying in granting the application under the Payment of
Wages Act and therefore, no interference is required. Learned
advocate Ms. Ratani submits that the explanation, which was
offered for condonation of delay with regard to the COVID-19
Pandemic was came after the limitation period came to be over.
Therefore also, the learned Court is justifying in dismissing the
application for condonation of delay and the present petition
deserves to be dismissed and no interference is required in the
impugned order.
6. Having considered the arguments advanced by the learned
advocates for the respective parties and considering the reasons
NEUTRAL CITATION
C/SCA/19739/2022 JUDGMENT DATED: 09/09/2025
undefined
assigned by the learned Labour Court, it emerges that on filing
the application under the Payment of Wages Act, except for the
chief examination, no evidence was adduced to substantiate the
claim of wages from October, 2014 to March, 2015. The present
petitioner appeared and has placed on record a copy of transfer
order, reply to the notice and has cross-examined the
respondent. During the cross-examination of the respondent, it is
admitted by the respondent that except for the affidavit in the
form of chief examination, no other evidence was adduced to
substantiate the claim to prove that he worked up to March,
2015. No evidence was placed on record. However, regarding the
transfer order which was placed on record, the respondent has
contended that he did not receive a copy of the said order.
Learned advocate has placed on record the order passed by the
learned Labour Court in Reference LCA No.536 of 2016 dated
06.05.2024 and on referring to the same, it emerges that the
respondent has worked at the transfer place for 2 to 3 days. In
the opinion of this Court, in absence of any evidence led by the
present respondent to substantiate the claim, the learned Court
has committed an error in granting the wages for the period from
October, 2014 to March, 2015. Additionally, it also emerges that
NEUTRAL CITATION
C/SCA/19739/2022 JUDGMENT DATED: 09/09/2025
undefined
no application for seeking production of documents from the
possession of the present petitioner was filed by the respondent.
The bare words of the respondent were taken as a gospel truth
by the learned Court while granting the relief under the Payment
of Wages Act.
6.1 With regard to the application for condonation of delay, it
is contended before the learned Court by the present petitioner
that the office situated at Kankaria has been closed. Though he
was represented through a concerned advocate, however, the
concerned advocate neither appeared before the learned Labour
Court nor informed him with regard to the order passed under
the Payment of Wages Act. It is also contended that immediately
thereafter, due to the Covid-19 Pandemic, he did not file an
application for restoration and therefore, delay was caused in
filing the application for restoration. In the considered opinion of
this Court, as the learned Labour Court, while granting the relief
under the Payment of Wages Act, has not assigned any cogent
and sufficient reasons, an opportunity is required to be granted
to the present petitioner to appear before the learned Labour
Court and to controvert through the contemporaneous record.
NEUTRAL CITATION
C/SCA/19739/2022 JUDGMENT DATED: 09/09/2025
undefined
6.2 At this stage, this Court has referred the decision rendered
by the Apex Court in the case of N. Balakrishnan v. M.
Krishnamurthy, reported in AIR 1998 SC 3222, wherein the Apex
Court has held as under:
"11. Rules of limitation are not meant to destroy the
rights of parties. They are meant to see that parties do
not resort to dilatory tactics, but seek their remedy
promptly. The object of providing a legal remedy is to
repair the damage caused by reason of legal injury. The
law of limitation fixes a lifespan for such legal remedy
for the redress of the legal injury so suffered. Time is
precious and wasted time would never revisit. During
the efflux of time, newer causes would sprout up
necessitating newer persons to seek legal remedy by
approaching the courts. So a lifespan must be fixed for
each remedy. Unending period for launching the
remedy may lead to unending uncertainty and
consequential anarchy. The law of limitation is thus
founded on public policy. It is enshrined in the maxim
interest reipublicae up sit finis litium (it is for the
general welfare that a period be put to litigation).
Rules of limitation are not meant to destroy the rights
of the parties. They are meant to see that parties do
not resort to dilatory tactics but seek their remedy
promptly. The idea is that every legal remedy must be
kept alive for a legislatively fixed period of time."
NEUTRAL CITATION
C/SCA/19739/2022 JUDGMENT DATED: 09/09/2025
undefined
6.3 This Court has also referred the decision of the Apex Court
rendered in the case of M.S. Grewal v. Deep Chand Sood,
reported in AIR 2001 SC 3660, wherein the Apex Court has held
as under:
"9. The observations as above, undoubtedly lay down
the basic guidance for assessment of damage but one
redeeming feature ought to be noted that compensation or
damages cannot be awarded as a solatium but to assess
the same with reference to loss of pecuniary benefits. In
the decision last noted (Subramania Iyer [(1969) 3 SCC 64] )
this Court placed strong reliance on two old decisions of
the English courts, to wit: Franklin v. South Eastern Rly. Co.
[157 ER 448 : (1858) 3 H&N 211] wherein Pollock, C.B.
stated:
"We do not say that it was necessary that actual
benefit should have been derived, a reasonable
expectation is enough and such reasonable
expectation might well exist, though from the father,
not being in need, the son had never done anything for
him. On the other hand a jury certainly ought not to
make a guess in the matter, but ought to be satisfied
that there has been a loss of sensible and appreciable
pecuniary benefit, which might have been reasonably
expected from the continuance of life."
6.4 Considering the overall circumstances, this Court is of the
view that the impugned orders dated 04.06.2018 and 18.05.2022
NEUTRAL CITATION
C/SCA/19739/2022 JUDGMENT DATED: 09/09/2025
undefined
are required to be set aside and the same are hereby set aside.
However, at the same time, the petitioner is directed to pay costs
of Rs.15,000/- to the respondent within a period of 4 weeks from
today.
7. Resultantly, the present petition is allowed to the aforesaid
extent. On payment of the said costs, the restoration of the main
application shall be made effective and the learned Labour Court
is directed to decide the same within a period of four months
thereafter.
(M. K. THAKKER,J)
Vikramsinh Amarsinh
