IN THE HIGH COURT OF GUJARAT AT AHMEDABAD R/LETTERS PATENT APPEAL NO. 160 of 2022 In R/SPECIAL CIVIL APPLICATION NO. 9810 of 2019 ================================================================

BRIJESH BHURABHAI SOLANKI Versus GUJARAT AYURVEDIC UNIVERSITY ================================================================

Appearance:

MR UT MISHRA(3605) for the Appellant(s) No. 1 MR DG SHUKLA(1998) for the Respondent(s) No. 1 ================================================================

CORAM:HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE BHARGAV D. KARIA and HONOURABLE MR.JUSTICE L. S. PIRZADA Date : 03/12/2025

ORAL ORDER

(PER : HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE BHARGAV D. KARIA)

1. Heard learned advocate Mr.U.T.Mishra for the appellant and learned advocate Mr.D.G.Shukla for the respondent.

2. The appellant has preferred this Appeal under Clause 15 of the Letters Patent, 1865 being aggrieved by the Judgment and Order dated 29.09.2021 passed by the learned Single Judge in Special Civil Application No.9810 of

2019.

3.1. It is the case of the appellant/original petitioner that he was employed by the respondent as permanent employee on permanent sanctioned vacant post from the year 1999 till 2004 and was terminated from service from the year 2004 and therefore, he preferred Reference (T) Case No.18/2011.

3.2. The Labour Court by Judgment and Award dated 14.03.2019 rejected the Reference on the ground of delay as per the decision of the Hon’ble Apex Court in case of Prabhakar Versus Joint Director Sericulture Department reported in AIR 2016 SC 2984 as the dispute has become a stale dispute.

3.3. Being aggrieved, the appellant- original petitioner challenged the order of the Labour Court before this Court by preferring Special Civil Application No.9810 of 2019, which is also dismissed vide impugned order passed by the learned Single Judge by observing as under :

“2. Learned advocate Mr.U.T.Mishra appearing for the petitioner has submitted that the impugned award is required to be quashed and set aside since there is a delay in raising the industrial dispute and the Labour Court has fallen in error in not appreciating the fact that the termination of the workman was in violation of the provisions of Sections 25F, 25G and 25H of the Industrial Disputes Act, 1947 (for short “the ID Act”). It is submitted that since there is an absolute violation of such provisions, the Labour Court could not have rejected the reference on the ground of delay. While placing reliance on the written statement filed by the workman, he has submitted that the same would reveal that the respondent-University had outsourced the work to other agency and hence, instead of employed the present petitioner, the another workman was employed and since there is violation of the provisions of Section 25G of the ID Act, the question of delay would not arise. In support of his submissions, he has placed reliance on the judgment of the Supreme Court in the case of Ajaib Singh vs. Sirhind Cooperative Marketing-Cum-Processing Service Society Limited and Another, (1999) 6 SCC 82, the decision of the Coordinate Bench dated 24.10.2019 passed in Special Civil Application No.20706 of 2018 and allied matters and the decision of the Division Bench dated 13.03.2019 passed in Letters Patent Appeal No.1554 of 2018. Thus, he has submitted that there is absolute violation of the aforesaid provisions and the reference cannot be rejected on the ground of delay.

3. In response to the aforesaid submissions, learned advocate Mr.D.G.Shukla appearing for the respondent-University has submitted that it is not in dispute that the petitioner was engaged on part time basis initially and thereafter on daily wage basis for about four months when the casual work was available and since the work was not available the contract with the petitioner was not extended after 01.05.2002. He has submitted that the petitioner has falsely raised industrial dispute in 2011 stating that he has been orally terminated from the services with effect from 01.01