Back
HIGH COURT OF GUJARAT
A.S. SUPEHIA, GITA GOPI, JJ
MANGLABHAI KESHRABHAI KAHNT – Appellant
Versus
DEPUTY EXECUTIVE ENGINEER – Respondent
ORDER :
A.S. SUPEHIA, J.
1. The present appeal is directed against the order dated 09.07.2024 passed in the captioned Writ Petition being Special Civil Application No.4559 of 2024 filed by the present appellant–original petitioner, whereby the learned Single Judge has rejected the Writ Petition.
2. At the outset, learned advocate Mr.Swapneshwar Goutam appearing for the appellant has submitted that the learned Single Judge has fell in error in rejecting the Writ Petition assailing the award dated 04.01.2023 passed by the Labour Court, Godhra in Reference (T) No.100 of 2008 on the ground of delay. He submitted that the Labour Court as well as the learned Single Judge have failed to appreciate the facts in its true perspective and have erred in rejecting the Reference proceedings as well as the Writ Petition by placing reliance on the judgment of the Supreme Court in the case of Prabhakar v. Joint Director, Sericulture Department & Anr. reported in (2015) 15 SCC 1. It is submitted that initially, the appellant was working as a Watchman and was appointed in the year 1984 and was terminated in the year 1985, and the dispute culminated into Reference (LCV) No.998 of 1986, which was dismisse
A workman must pursue industrial disputes within a reasonable time; undue delay without satisfactory explanation can render the dispute non-existent, as established in Supreme Court precedents.
A stale industrial dispute cannot be maintained; the workman must demonstrate that the dispute remains alive despite delays, as established in Prabhakar v. Joint Director.
Point of Law - There is no limitation prescribed under the Act for making a reference under Section 10(1) of the ID Act, yet it is for the “appropriate Government” to consider whether it is expedient....
A significant delay in raising an industrial dispute can render it stale, even in the absence of a statutory limitation period.
Breach of Sections 25F, 25G and 25H of the Industrial Disputes Act fell flat as none of petitioners-workmen could establish before Labour Court that they had completed 240 days of continuous service ....
In absence of any evidence produced by the petitioner workman establishing that he had worked under the Respondent continuously for 240 days and, coupled with the fact that the industrial dispute has....
The existence of industrial dispute is essential for making a reference, and mere delay in raising the dispute cannot be a ground for refusing to make a reference. The government's opinion about the ....
Principle of jurisprudence that a right not exercised for a long time is non-existent. Even when there is no limitation period prescribed by any statute relating to certain proceedings, in such cases....
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
