The court affirmed that a party cannot disown its advocate's negligence, holding that the actions of an appointed advocate bind the client, reinforcing accountability in legal proceedings.

JUDGMENT :

M.K. THAKKER, J.

1. Since the issue raised in the all these petitions are similar, they are being decided by a common judgment. Facts of Special Civil Application No.7819 of 2025 is taken for consideration of the disposal of these petitions.

2. The present petition is filed under Article 226 read with Article 14 and 19 (1)(g) of the Constitution of India thereby, challenging the order passed by the learned labour court, Ahmedabad dated 01.10.2024 in Reference T (L.C.A.) No.452 of 2011.

3. It is the case of the present petitioner that the petitioner establishment is engaged in the business of providing investigation solutions for MACP and other Miscellaneous claims of General Insurance Companies. While discharging obligation towards aforesaid Insurance Companies, the petitioner establishment used to and continues to engage service of freelance individuals from available talent tool, on need and case to case basis and the payment is also made on case to case basis. The respondent who is also one of such individual who used to be engaged by the petitioner establishment on task basis, approached the learned labour court through Union claiming the breach of section 25(F), 25(G) and 25(H) of the Act which culminated in the dispute being Reference T (L.C.A.) No.452 of 2011. The said reference was heard ex-parte and award was passed on 17.05.2014 whereby, directions were issued upon the petitioner to reinstate the respondent workman with 25% back wages alongwith continuity of service. As the same was an ex- parte award, therefore, application was filed under Rule 26 A of the Industrial Disputes (Gujarat) Rules, 1966 seeking restoration of reference by setting aside the ex- parte award. The said application was allowed on 30.09.2015 and the reference was restored on a condition to pay the cost of Rs.7,500/-. Petitioner thereafter, appeared and filed a written statement below Exh.19 on 20.07.2017 and has also filed the reply to the production application which was filed by the respondent and was allowed vide order dated 14.03.2019. However, thereafter, the petitioner disappeared from the proceedings and again the award was passed on 01.10.2024 directing the present petitioner to reinstate the respondent with 25% back wages which is subject matter of challenge before this Court.

4. Heard learned advocate Mr.I.G.Joshi for the petitioner.

5. Learned advocate Mr.Joshi submits that the respondent individual has not produced any single document to substantiate the claim made in the statement of claim. It is submitted by the learned advocate Mr.Joshi submits that though respondent is not working with the petitioner Company for more than 240 days and has not discharged any obligation under section 25(B) of the ID Act, learned court has committed error in holding illegal termination under section 25(F) of the ID Act. It is submitted by the learned advocate Mr.Joshi submits that respondent individual was working on commission basis and the Company is still ready and willing to take back the respondent individual on commission basis, however, learned labour court has committed an error in awarding the back wages at the rate of 25%. Learned advocate Mr.Joshi submits due to an inadvertent mistake on the part of the advocate, the evidence could not be lead before the learned labour court, however, reasonable opportunity is required to be granted in favour of the petitioner by imposing the cost and by remanding back the reference to the learned labour court. Learned advocate Mr.Joshi submits that in absence of t