IMPORTANT POINT
The court emphasized that government departments must adhere to limitation periods and cannot claim undue advantages due to bureaucratic delays, reinforcing the principle of diligence in legal proceedings.

JUDGMENT :

M. K. THAKKER, J.

1. The present petition is filed under Article 14, 16 and 226 of the Constitution of India challenging the award passed by the learned labour court in reference (LCA) D No.21 of 1999 dated 08.04.2003 and the order passed in Miscellaneous Application No.156 of 2015 in Miscellaneous Application No.250 of 2004 in reference (LCA) D No.21 of 1999 dated 19.03.2009.

2. The petitioner Municipality has challenged the award passed in favour of the respondent workman by which the directions were issued to regularise the services of the respondent from the date of their initial appointment as a sweeper. The aforesaid award is passed on 30.12.1999. During the proceedings of the hearing before the learned labour Court the learned labour Court has issued notice to the present petitioner however, no one remained present either during the conciliation or for the hearing before the learned labour Court. Before the learned labour Court the workman was examined namely Jasuben Galiyal who deposed in her chief examination that she was serving with the petitioner Gram Panchayat since last 7 years from the date of filing of reference. Her working hours were morning 6:00 a.m. to 10:00 a.m. and noon 2:00 p.m. to evening 6:00 p.m. The work is of perennial in nature and the other employees who are similarly situated were regularised. They are getting the salary of Rs.3,000/- however, the deponent is getting the salary of Rs.1,000/- and the demand was raised to regularise the service through the Union. Likewise the aforesaid witness Jasuben, other 3 persons were also member of the Union. As no one has represented the present petitioner despite having given sufficient opportunity, therefore exparte order came to be passed by the learned labour court and the reference was allowed qua 13 employees and one of the employee namely Puniben Jerambhai died during the pendency of the reference therefore, same was rejected qua her. The petitioner has filed an application being Miscellaneous Application No. 240 of 2004 before the learned labour Court for quashing and setting aside the ex-parte award under Rule 26A of the I.D.Act. After hearing to the parties it was rejected by the learned labour Court vide order dated 19.03.2009. Thereafter, another application was filed being MCA No. 156 of 2015 in MCA No. 250 of 2004 in reference LCA D No.21 of 1999 with a prayer to condone the delay in preferring the quashing and setting aside the ex-parte judgement and award. The aforesaid application was permitted to be withdrawn, thereafter, workman has approached this Court by way of filing writ petition being SCA No.16559 of 2022 praying to issue direction to the Municipality to implement the judgement and award dated 08.04.2003 passed in reference (LCA) D No.21 of 1999 which was disposed of by this Court vide order dated 24.06.2024 with a direction to approach before the appropriate Court for execution of the award. As the petitioner came into knowledge with regard to the above petitions the present petition came to be filed on 04.12.2023 challenging the award passed in the main reference dated 08.04.2003 and order dated 19.03.2009 passed in Miscellaneous Application No.156 of 2003 refusing to condone the delay.

3. Heard learned advocate Mr.Lakhpatsinh Dabhi for the petitioner.

3.1. Learned advocate Mr.Lakhpatsinh Dabhi submits that the award passed to regularise the service of the present petitioner is against the provisions of law. Learned advocate Mr.Lakhpatsinh Dabhi submits further submits that workman was daily wagers they are not entitled to be regularised as they have been appointed without following the recruitment process. To substantiate his argument reliance was placed on the decision rendered by the Apex Court in the case of State of Uttaranchal Vs Prantiya Sinchai Avam Bandh Yogana Shramik Mahaparishad 2007 (12) SCC 483 and Hindustan Aeronautics Ltd. Vs Dan Bahadur Singh reported in 2007 (6) SCC 207 as well as the decision of this Court