The court upheld the Labour Court's order for reinstatement and back wages, emphasizing the equal application of the law of limitation and the petitioner's failure to present its case.

JUDGMENT :

1. Rule returnable forthwith. Learned advocate Mr. Rajesh Mankad waives service of rule on behalf of the respondent.

2. This petition is filed under Articles 226 and 227 of the Constitution of India, challenging the order passed by the learned Labour Court, Bhavnagar, in ID Miscellaneous Application No.10 of 2022 and the order dated 02.01.2020 passed in Reference (LCB) No.51 of 2014, whereby the reference filed by the respondent came to be allowed and the petitioner herein was directed to reinstate the respondent - workman to his original post with continuity of service and 30% back wages from the date of raising the dispute i.e. 25.11.2023.

3. The gist of the case is that the respondent herein filed Reference (LCB) No.51 of 2014, seeking reinstatement benefits with all other consequential benefits, wherein notice was issued and served upon the present petitioner on 24.02.2024. Thereafter, a statement of claim came to be filed, which was also supplied to the present petitioner. However, the petitioner did not appear, either in person or through a representative. Therefore, an ex-parte award came to be passed, directing the present petitioner to reinstate the respondent - workman with the above-stated benefits. Challenging the above ex-parte order, an application under Rule 26A of the Gujarat Industrial Disputes Act, 1947 was filed on 10.03.2022, which was also rejected by the learned Labour Court on 16.6.2023. Being aggrieved and dissatisfied with the above orders, the petitioner is before this Court.

4. Heard learned AGP Ms. Bhati and learned advocate Mr.Mankad.

5. Learned AGP Ms. Bhati states that the learned Reference Court has committed an error in allowing the reference, which was filed after a delay of 11 years, by granting the benefit of reinstatement with 30% back wages and continuity of service. Learned AGP Ms. Bhati states that no sufficient opportunity was provided by the learned Reference Court to adduce evidence and on the day when the arguments of the workman were concluded, the argument of the present petitioner was closed. Learned AGP Ms. Bhati states that without examining the case on merits and without examining the requirement of continuity of service, the learned Reference Court held that the respondent had worked from 1997-98 to 2002-03. Learned AGP Ms. Bhati, by drawing the attention to the roster produced along with the memo of the petition, submitted that as per the presence roster, the respondent completed 240 days only in the year 2001-02, the learned Reference Court, without examining the case on merits and without asking the respondent - workman to adduce evidence, awarded the reference in favour of the respondent. Learned AGP Ms. Bhati states that the learned Reference Court also committed an error in rejecting the application filed under Rule 26A of the Gujarat Industrial Disputes Act, 1947. Therefore, the petition is required to be allowed by setting aside both impugned orders.

6. On the other hand, learned advocate Mr. Mankad, appearing for the respondent, has submitted that as per the evidence of the petitioner, which is produced with the memo of the petition in the preceding year i.e. in the year 2001-02, the requirement of Section 25B has been completed. Learned advocate Mr. Mankad has drawn the attention of this Court to the averments made in the reply, which remained uncontroverted that immediately upon termination of service i.e. on 01.11.2002, a complaint came to be filed on 21.06.2003 before the learned Labour Court, which was registered as Complaint ID Case No.228 of 2003. Learned advocate Mr. Mankad submits that notices were issued to the petitioner for conciliation on 22.07.2003 and 05.08.2003. However, the petitioner did not respond at that point in time also. Learned advocate Mr. Mankad submits that as at the relevant point of time, the issue of whether the Forest Department, was an industry or not was in contest, the learned Conciliation Officer declined to make a reference. H