Gujarat High Court

State Of Gujarat vs Shri Bhaveshbhai Ravindrabhai ... on 15 September, 2025

                                                                                                                   NEUTRAL CITATION




                            C/SCA/11396/2025                                       JUDGMENT DATED: 15/09/2025

                                                                                                                    undefined




                                     IN THE HIGH COURT OF GUJARAT AT AHMEDABAD

                                       R/SPECIAL CIVIL APPLICATION NO. 11396 of 2025


                       FOR APPROVAL AND SIGNATURE:


                       HONOURABLE MRS. JUSTICE M. K. THAKKER
                       ==========================================================

                                    Approved for Reporting                        Yes          No
                                                                                              ✔
                       ==========================================================
                                                STATE OF GUJARAT & ANR.
                                                         Versus
                                       SHRI BHAVESHBHAI RAVINDRABHAI RAJYAGURU
                       ==========================================================
                       Appearance:
                       ADITYA DAVDA AGP for the Petitioner(s) No. 1,2
                       LEARNED SENIOR ADVOCATE Mr. SALIN MEHTA WITH MR NINAD P
                       SHAH(10911) for the Respondent(s) No. 1
                       ==========================================================

                          CORAM:HONOURABLE MRS. JUSTICE M. K. THAKKER

                                                              Date : 15/09/2025

                                                              ORAL JUDGMENT

1. Leave to amend. Necessary amendments shall be carried

out forthwith. Rule returnable forthwith. Learned advocate Mr.

Shah waives service of notice of rule on behalf of the respondent

No.1.

2. The present petition is filed under Articles 226 and 227 of

the Constitution of India, challenging the impugned order passed

by the learned Industrial Court, Bhavnagar, in Reference (IT) No.

119 of 2016 dated 09.12.2022, whereby the learned Reference

NEUTRAL CITATION

C/SCA/11396/2025 JUDGMENT DATED: 15/09/2025

undefined

Court has directed the present petitioner to regularize the

service of the respondent from the date of initial appointment

and the interregnum period, i.e., from 01.09.2009 to the date of

reference, i.e., 15.11.2016, was directed to be considered as

notional for the purpose of terminal benefits. It is directed to

consider the date of regularization, i.e., 01.09.2009.

3. It is the case of the present petitioner that respondent was

working as a Labourer from 01.09.2009 and the dispute was

raised before the Industrial Court for regularization of service.

The learned Court, while allowing the reference, passed an ex-

parte order directing the petitioner to regularize the service with

the relief mentioned in the earlier part of this judgment.

4. Heard learned AGP Mr. Davda for the State and learned

Senior Advocate Mr. Shalin Mehta with learned advocate Mr.

Ninad Shah for the respondent.

5. Learned AGP Mr. Davda submits that though there is no

post of labour in a sanctioned set-up, the learned Court has

awarded the reference in favour of the respondent. Learned AGP

Mr. Davda submits that after an ex-parte award came to be

passed on 09.12.2022, pursuant to which an application under

NEUTRAL CITATION

C/SCA/11396/2025 JUDGMENT DATED: 15/09/2025

undefined

Rule 26A of the Gujarat Industrial Disputes Rules came to be filed

with a prayer for condonation of delay, being Miscellaneous

Application No.06 of 2024. The learned Court dismissed the said

application on a technical ground that in the application, only the

Range Forest Officer had affirmed and the Deputy Conservator

of Forest had not made any signature or confirmation. Learned

AGP Mr. Davda submits that though the reference was filed after

a period of 7 years, claiming the relief of regularization, the

learned Reference Court, by holding it an unfair labour practice,

has awarded the reference in favour of the respondent. Learned

AGP Mr. Davda submits that the learned court has considered the

length of service only for granting the relief of regularization by

overlooking the material aspect of the sanctioned set-up.

Learned AGP Mr. Davda submits that, in view of the above, the

impugned award deserves to be set aside and the matter is

required to be remanded back to the learned Reference Court

for deciding afresh after providing a reasonable opportunity to

the present petitioner to adduce evidence.

6. On the other hand, learned Senior Advocate Mr. Shalin

Mehta submits that various opportunities were granted by the

NEUTRAL CITATION

C/SCA/11396/2025 JUDGMENT DATED: 15/09/2025

undefined

learned Reference Court to appear before the learned Reference

Court; however, the petitioner failed to appear before the

learned Labour Court and therefore, no error has been

committed by the learned Industrial Court while granting the

reliefs in favour of the respondent. It is further submitted by

learned Senior Advocate Mr. Mehta that the length of service has

not been disputed by the petitioner in the present petition. Also,

the respondents, who have been serving since 2009 on a daily

wager basis, have been given a meager amount towards wages in

comparison to regularly employees. Learned Senior Advocate Mr.

Mehta submits that by paying such an amount, the petitioner has

adopted an unfair labour practice and therefore, also the

impugned award deserves to be confirmed and the petition is

required to be dismissed. Learned Senior Advocate Mr. Mehta

submits that the restoration application, which came to be filed,

was delayed by around one and half years and in absence of any

cogent and sufficient reasons for the delay, the learned Industrial

Court is justifying in rejecting the application for condonation of

delay. In that background also, the impugned award deserves to

be upheld and the petition is required to be dismissed.

NEUTRAL CITATION

C/SCA/11396/2025 JUDGMENT DATED: 15/09/2025

undefined

7. Having considered the arguments advanced by the learned

advocates for the respective parties and on referring to the

reasons assigned, it emerges that the dispute came to be raised

before the learned Court, Bhavnagar, by filing the reference

being Reference (IT) No.119 of 2016, seeking the benefit of

regularization on the post of labourer or any equivalent post. It is

claimed by the respondent before the learned Industrial Court

that they are serving since 01.09.2009 and have been paid a

meager amount of wages after taking the work which is

perennial in nature from the respondent. It is an undisputed fact

that the petitioner remained absent before the learned Tribunal

and the Reference Court had adjudicated the reference ex parte.

However, to substantiate the claim of regularization, in the

opinion of this Court, the prime consideration would be the

sanctioned set-up. It emerges from the record that to establish

the claim, the respondent did not bother to produce any

documentary evidence suggesting that a post is available in the

sanctioned set-up and the same has been remained vacant. The

burden to prove the case is on the workman, even if the

petitioner fails to appear and has not controverted the material

placed before the Court. Admittedly, except for the chief

NEUTRAL CITATION

C/SCA/11396/2025 JUDGMENT DATED: 15/09/2025

undefined

examination, the respondent has not produced any documentary

evidence in support of his claim. The learned Court, instead of

relying on bare words of the respondent, ought to have relied on

evidences or ought to have directed the respondent to produce

any contemporaneous records to support his claim. In absence of

the same, in the opinion of this Court, the award passed by the

learned Reference Court suffers from infirmity. The application

for restoration, which was filed, was delayed by around one and

half years. However, instead of examining the reasons mentioned

in the application for condonation of delay, the learned Court has

rejected the same on the technical ground that the same was

affirmed by the Range Forest Officer, Palitana, instead of the

Deputy Conservator of Forest, Bhavnagar. In absence of any

cogent and convincing reasons given by the learned Industrial

Court for rejecting the application for condonation of delay, this

Court is of the view that the reference is required to be restored

to its original file and the opportunity to lead evidence is

required to be given to both the parties in support of their claim.

7.1 At this stage, this Court has referred the decision rendered

by the Apex Court in the case of N. Balakrishnan v. M.

NEUTRAL CITATION

C/SCA/11396/2025 JUDGMENT DATED: 15/09/2025

undefined

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."

7.2 This Court has also referred the decision of the Apex Court

rendered in the case of M.S. Grewal v. Deep Chand Sood,

NEUTRAL CITATION

C/SCA/11396/2025 JUDGMENT DATED: 15/09/2025

undefined

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."

8. Considering the overall facts, this Court has passed the

following order:

(i) The present petition is partly allowed.

(ii) The impugned order dated 09.12.2022 is set aside. The

reference is remanded back to the learned Industrial Court for

NEUTRAL CITATION

C/SCA/11396/2025 JUDGMENT DATED: 15/09/2025

undefined

deciding afresh.