Back
Gujarat High Court
Judgename :H.K.RATHOD
GUJARAT WATER RESOURCES DEVELOPMENT CORPORATION LTD - Appellant
Versus
BALDEVJI MOHANJI SOLANKI - Respondent
Special Civil Application 8014 Of 2006
Decided On : 04/18/2006
Labour Law – Industrial Dispute Act,1947 – Section 29 – Limitation Act – Section 5 – Workmen – Daily wagers – Termination of Service – Reinstatement – Condonation of Delay – Service of respondent workman was terminated – Satisfactory explanation and sufficient cause – Industrial dispute was referred for adjudication on 15th November, 1989 and award was passed by Labour Court, granting reinstatement as a daily wagers and benefit of GR dated 17th october, 1988 with back wages of interim period – This award is challenged by petitioner in present petition after a period of about more than 4 years – Thereafter, the papers were misplaced and it could not be handed over to the Learned Advocate of the High Court to file the petition. Thereafter, on 16. 8. 2004 matter was referred to the Learned advocate for his opinion – Thereafter, all the papers were handed to the Learned Advocate for filing the petition – Learned Advocate also took some time as some important papers were not available in the file – Finally present petition is filed – Petitioner submits that there is a bona fide delay on part of petitioner and there is sufficient cause to condone the delay in the interest of justice – Petitioner therefore prays to condone the delay – Held, It is not a ease of poor workman or a villagers who approach Court with a request that delay can be condoned because he was not able to understand the consequences or he was not having sufficient means to challenge the action within some reasonable time. So any handicap upon the party pointed out to the satisfaction of the Court not to file proceedings within reasonable time, then, Court may certainly exercise the discretionary powers, but in this case. Gujarat Water Resources Development coiporation Ltd. the petitioner is having highest officer working in the Corporation upto IAS level and still matter remained pending with the head office for more than 3 years and matter remained pending with the Advocate for a period of 2 years. For that, there is no explanation or any other details have been given by the petitioner nor any affidavit from responsible officer of the head office and Advocate concerned is filed – There is clear positive negligence and carelessness of petitioner. No documents and correspondence of head office and Advocate concerned produced on record – Therefore, according to my opinion, the delay in filing the present petition is not satisfactorily explained by the petitioner – No justifiable and sufficient cause shown by the petitioner to get the delay condoned – Contention of Mr. Chauhan that Labour Court has passed an award without jurisdiction and award is nullity – Whatever defect according to petitioner in award that is required to be examined by the competent Court. Unless and until competent Court examined the award in question, merely having the opinion about award of petitioner has no consequence – Petitioner is not able to satisfy the conscience of Court about condoning the delay and there is no sufficient cause shown to this Court which can condone the delay as prayed for by petitioner – Absence of satisfactory explanation and sufficient cause, delay in filing present petitions is not condoned and all the three petitions are rejected only on ground of delay without considering merits of matters – Petitions rejected.
( 1 ) HEARD learned Advocate, Mr. D, G. Chauhan. appearing on behalf of petitioner- Corporation in all the three matters.
( 2 ) THIS group of three petitions involve one legal question and, therefore, common order is passed by this Court.
( 3 ) THE fact of SCA No. 8010 of 2006 are as under : 1. The service of respondent workman was terminated on 5th July. 1989. Industrial dispute was referred for adjudication on 15th November, 1989 and award was passed by Labour Court, Ahmedabad in reference No. 1884 of 1990 on 24th january,2001 granting reinstatement as a daily wagers and benefit of GR dated 17th october, 1988 with back wages of interim period. This award is published on 26th october. 2001 which was received by petitioner on 6th November,2001. This award is challenged by petitioner in present petition after a period of about more than 4 years. The reason for delay in challenging the present petition is incorporated in para. 10 of the present petition, which is quoted as under :"para. 10 the petitioner respectfully submits that the award was passed on 24. 1. 2001 and the same was published on 26. 10. 2001. It was received by the petitioner on 6. 11. 2001. Thereafter, it was sent to the Head Office for taking appropriate decision to prefer petition in the High Court. Due to administrative reasons, the Head Office took some time in taking decision in the matter. Thereafter, the papers were misplaced and it could not be handed over to the Learned Advocate of the High Court to file the petition. Thereafter, on 16. 8. 2004 the matter was referred to the Learned advocate for his opinion. On 17. 8. 2004 the learned Advocate opined to file the petition. Thereafter, all the papers were handed to the Learned Advocate for filing the petition. The learned Advocate also took some time as some important papers were not available in the file. Finally on 9. 1,2006, the present petition is filed. The petitioner respectfully submits that there is a bona fide delay on the part of the petitioner and there is sufficient cause to condone the delay in the interest of justice. The petitioner therefore prays to condone the delay. "2. The fact of SCA No. 8011 of 2006 are as under : the service of respondent workman was terminated on 15th July, 1989. Industrial dispute was referred for adjudication and award was passed by Labour Court, ahmedabad in Reference No. 1691 of 1992 on 21st November,2001 granting reinstatement with continuity of service. This award was published on 9th april,2001 which was received by petitioner on 5th September,2001. This award is challenged by petitioner in present petition. The delay caused in challenging the present award is explained in Para. 10 of the present petition, which is quoted as under:"para. 10 the petitioner respectfully submits that the award was passed on 21. 11. 2000 and the same was published on 9. 4. 2001. It was received by the, petitioner on 5. 9. 2001. Thereafter, on 4. 12. 2001 the papers were sent to the learned Advocate for his opinion as to whether the petition can be filed before the High Court. On 3. 1. 2002, the learned Advocate opined that the petitioner should be filed. Again, on 25. 2. 2003. the petitioner instructed the learned Advocate to file the petition in the High Court but the petition could not be filed. Thereafter, on 11. 11. 2004, the Corporation engaged another lawyer and requested him to file petition in the High Court against the said award. The learned Advocate also took some time as some important papers were not available in the file. Finally on 9. 1. 2006. the present petition is filed. The petitioner respectfully submits that there is a bona fide delay on the petitioner of the petitioner and there is sufficient cause to condone the delay in the interest of justice. The petitioner, therefore, prays to condone the delay. "3. The fact of SCA No. 8014 of 2006 are as under : the service of respondent workman was terminated on 31st May. 1992. Industrial dispute was
SupremeToday
An indispensable Tool for Legal Professionals, Endorsed by Various High Court and Judicial Officers
Please visit our Training & Support
Center or Contact Us for assistance
Scan Me!
India’s Legal research and Law Firm App, Download now!
For Daily Legal Updates, Join us on :
Back to top
