The court emphasized that mere assertions of rights do not justify delay in legal proceedings unless supported by substantial reasons, enforcing adherence to limitation principles.

JUDGMENT :

M. K. Thakker, J.

1. Rule returnable forthwith. Learned advocate Ms. Dipmala Desai waives service of rule on behalf of the respondent.

2. With the consent of the parties, instead of deciding the application for stay, this Court has proceeded to hear the main matter on merits.

3. The present petition is filed under Articles 226 and 227 of the Constitution of India thereby challenging the award passed by the learned Labour Court, Ahmedabad in Reference LCA No.514 of 2014 passed below Exh.21 dated 18.04.2022 and the order passed below Exh.9 dated 30.03.2016.

4. It is the case of the present petitioner that as per the allegations made by the respondent in the statement of claim, the respondent was serving with the petitioner - establishment on the post of Peon / Helper since many years and he was getting daily wages of Rs.225/-. It is alleged that the service of the respondent was terminated on 11.01.2012. Challenging the termination, the dispute was raised before the learned Assistant Commissioner, which was ultimately culminated into the reference, learned Reference Court has decided the reference in favour of the respondent ex-parte as the petitioner – establishment did not appear, though he received the notice. Thereafter the restoration application came to be filed before the leaned Labour Court under Rule 26A of the Industrial Disputes Gujarat Act, seeking the condonation of delay of 3 years and 3 months. Learned Reference Court has, after perusing the reasons for delay, has rejected the application for condonation of delay vide order dated 18.04.2022, which is the subject matter of challenge before this Court.

5. Heard learned advocate Mr. Jani for the petitioner and learned advocate Ms. Desai for the respondent.

6. Learned advocate Mr. Jani has submitted that after ex- parte award passed, the notice was received in the application filed under Section 33(C)(1), being a Recovery Application No.68 of 2019 and on receiving the notice dated 06.02.2020, the petitioner came into the knowledge with regard to the ex-parte award. Learned advocate Mr. Jani submits that thereafter the restoration application came to be filed on 15.10.2020. It transpires that there was a delay of 7 months and 10 days, if it would be counted from the date of knowledge. However, learned Labour Court has come to the conclusion that there was a delay of 3 years, 3 months and 11 days in filing the application and that also remains unexplained. Learned advocate Mr. Jani submits that so far as the merits of the case are concerned before the learned Assistant Commissioner, when the hearing had taken place, offer was made to the present respondent - employee to resume duty, which was recorded initially by the learned Assistant Labour Commissioner and thereafter it was struck off. However, learned Labour Court, without having considered the above aspect, has awarded the reference in favour of the respondent, therefore, the same is required to be interfered with and the petition is required to be allowed.

7. Per contra, learned advocate Ms. Desai submits that as per the allegations made by the present petitioner, the report submitted by learned Assistant Labour Commissioner dated 16.06.2014 is alleging that there is a manipulation in the report. Learned advocate Ms. Desai submits that learned Labour Court, while rejecting the application for condonation of delay, has concluded that this would not be allegations against the present respondent, but the present petitioner had doubted on the integrity of the learned Assistant Labour Commissioner without any reasons. Learned advocate Ms. Desai submits that excep