The court upheld the Labour Court's decision to reinstate the workman, emphasizing the State's failure to justify a five-year delay in challenging the award.

(PER : HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE BIREN VAISHNAV) [1]Heard Ms. Shruti Dhruve, learned advocate appearing for the appellant.

[2]This appeal has been filed by the State challenging the order dated 04.04.2019 passed by the learned Single Judge. [3]Perusal of the order dated 04.04.2019 indicates that the award which was under challenge by the State was dated 16.12.2014. The learned Single Judge therefore rejected the petition and held as under:

• "On consideration of the submissions made by learned AGP, it would transpire that the challenge to the main award dated 16/12/2014 is hopelessly delayed by about five years; without any plausible explanation.

• On the principle envisaged in Prabhakar Vs. Joint Director, Sericulture Department And Another reported in (2015) 15 SCC 1, the State also would be under an obligation to explain the delay in lodging a challenge to the award.

• Learned AGP invited the attention of this Court to paragraph 5 of the petition with the submission that the delay has been explained. The averment runs thus:

• “5. It is submitted that the impugned order at ANNEXUREA totally passed by the Learned Labour Court on 16.12.2014, However, the certified copy of the same was not received by the deponent office, It was only, when the Revision Application came to be filed the deponent came to know about the order of the Labour Court. Thereafter the opinion of the concerned AGP from the Learned Tribunal was obtained;

• during the procedure of the receiving of opinion of the AGP of Ld. Tribunal, the proposal was sent whether to accept the award or not. The said proposal was further forwarded to the Government for appropriate decision. The respondent have preferred a recovery application bearing application no.78/15 on 30.10.2015, in the mean time, and order came to be passed on 18.08.2017. Again a letter was sent for taking appropriate permission from the Legal Department on 23.08.2017. The letter was sent by the Collector to the Revenue Department for filling an appeal and the Revenue Department forwarded the same to the Legal Department for sanction to file an Appeal before the Hon’ble High Court. The Legal Department granted the permission to file the appeal against the award in question in the present petition on 14.12.2018, and asked to contact the Government Pleader. The necessary documents were submitted to the office of the Government Pleader on 21.01.2019. Subsequently, the case came to be alloted to one of the AGP and certain documents were called from the Department on 5 th February,

2019. The concerned Assistant Government Pleader called for the reason that why no recovery application has been challenged, further instructions on merits, the said came to be provide and draft came to be prepared.”

It would appear from the said averments that though the award was made in 2014; the petitioner was able to complete the procedural aspects only in February, 2019.

Such explanation cannot be accepted.

Insofar as challenge to the order rendered in recovery application No.78 of 2015 is concerned, it can be noticed that GR dated 17/10/1988 contemplates three situations on the basis of which the benefit can be availed of by the daily wager. Specified benefits are extended to all the daily wager on completion of five, ten and fifteen years as the case may be. Concededly, the respondent was appointed in the year 2000 and was terminated somewhere in the year 2005 and thereafter by impugned award was ordered to be reinstated with continuity of service, which would only mean that since the date of his appointment till date he will have to be treated as if in service and thus the workman has complied with the provisions of the GR dated 17/10/1988 and benefits are rightly computed by the Labour Court in the aforementioned GR warranting no interference from this Court.

For the foregoing reasons, the petition fails and is dismissed."

[4]We do not find any reason to interfere with the order passed by the learned Single Judge. A