The court emphasized the necessity for a precise, day-by-day explanation for delays in legal proceedings under Section 5 of the Limitation Act, marking that mere assumptions cannot justify condonation.

ORDER :

HEMANT M. PRACHCHHAK, J.

1. Since common issue is involved in the captioned writ petitions, the same are heard analogously and are being decided by this common Order.

2. Present petitions are filed by the petitioner - Company under Articles 226 & 227 of the Constitution of India read with the provisions of the Industrial Disputes Act, 1947 (hereinafter be referred to as “the Act”) challenging the orders of the even date i.e. dated 20.09.2025 passed by the learned Judge (S.D.), Labour Court, Ahmedabad (hereinafter be referred to as “the Labour Court”) in respective Misc. Applications for condonation of delay filed by the petitioner-Company, whereby, the learned Judge has rejected the applications for condonation of delay.

3. Brief facts giving rise to the present petitions are that, the respective respondents (ex-workmen), who were engaged as documentation executive for sorting and packing of documents pursuant to work allotted by respondent No.2, raised an industrial dispute alleging illegal termination and filed Reference (L.C.A.) Nos. 389 of 2013, 390 of 2013, 392 of 2013 & 391 of 2013 respectively, before the Labour Court, Ahmedabad, against the petitioner Company. That, the petitioner-Company shifted its Ahmedabad office from Sarkhej to Motera, as a result, any correspondence issued at the old address was not received by the petitioner-Company. That, the Notices in the reference proceedings were received by Mr. Kaushik Anand Satpathy, an official of the petitioner-Company, who thereafter, left the services of the petitioner without handing over charge or informing the management or Ahmedabad branch about the pendency of the said reference. That, due to non-appearance caused by the departure of the concerned official and lack of internal communication, aforesaid References proceeded ex-parte against the petitioner-Company and respondent No.2 by the Labour Court, Ahmedabad. That, upon becoming aware of the ex-parte proceedings, the petitioner-Company engaged an Advocate and filed Restoration Applications before the Labour Court, Ahmedabad, whereby, the Labour Court allowed Restoration Applications and restored the References to its original file, and imposed costs of 10,000/-, which were duly paid by the petitioner to the respondents-workmen. That, after restoration, the petitioner-Company actively participated in the proceedings, engaged an Advocate, and filed its written statement, duly signed and verified on behalf of the petitioner-Company. That, the reference proceedings continued before the Labour Court and the petitioner remained under a bona fide belief that the matters were being duly represented and monitored by the Advocate engaged on its behalf. That, due to the COVID-19 pandemic, the petitioner- Company underwent staff rotation, restructuring, and changes in management personnel and newly appointed officials were not informed about the pendency of References. That, during this period, the Advocate representing the petitioner failed to inform the petitioner-Company about hearing dates, progress of proceedings, or any adverse orders and no effective notice of hearings was received by the petitioner at its correct address. That, the Labour Court passed an ex-parte Award in the aforesaid References allegedly due to non- appearance of the petitioner-Company. That, as per the respondents' claim, the ex-parte Award was published/sent to the parties; however, the said Award was never served upon the petitioner-Company at its correct or current address, nor any intimation was received from the Advocate and therefore, the petitioner-Company remained completely unaware of passing of the ex-parte Award dated 04/03/2022. That, the respondents-workmen filed respective Reco