Back
IN THE HIGH COURT OF GUJARAT AT AHMEDABAD
HEMANT M.PRACHCHHAK
Soft Age Information Technology Limited, Through Authorised Representative Munindra Kumar Yadav – Appellant
Versus
Modan Rafik Gulambhai – Respondent
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
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 condonatio....
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.
The existence of a binding settlement under Section 2(p) of the Industrial Disputes Act negates claims of workmen, especially when raised after an excessive delay of 19 years.
Delay in filing a reference does not preclude adjudication on merits, especially when the dispute remains alive.
The Labour Court does not become functus officio after the award has become enforceable, as far as the ex parte award is concerned. It is within the powers of the Labour Court/Tribunal to entertain a....
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
