IN THE HIGH COURT OF GUJARAT AT AHMEDABAD R/SPECIAL CIVIL APPLICATION NO. 12895 of 2025 With R/SPECIAL CIVIL APPLICATION NO. 12926 of 2025 With R/SPECIAL CIVIL APPLICATION NO. 13015 of 2025 With R/SPECIAL CIVIL APPLICATION NO. 13046 of 2025 ==========================================

NANUBHAI NAVSUBHAI GAVIT Versus DEPUTY VAN SANRAKHSHAK & ANR.

==========================================

Appearance:

MR YOGI GADHIA WITH MR RAHUL H DESAI(13722) for the Petitioner MS SWEETI SAMARA AGP for the Respondents ==========================================

CORAM:HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE HEMANT M. PRACHCHHAK Date : 04/12/2025 COMMON ORAL ORDER

1. Present petitions are filed by the workmen under Articles 226 and 227 of the Constitution of India read with the provisions of the Industrial Disputes Act [hereinafter be referred to as “the ID Act”] challenging the impugned award dated 24.04.2025 passed by the Labour Court, Valsad whereby the Labour Court has rejected the references.

2. Short facts of the present case are that the workmen were working as a watchmen - Labourers were illegally terminated from the services. Therefore, the petitioners have raised the industrial dispute before the learned Assistant Labour Commissioner and, thereafter, the dispute was referred to the Labour Court for adjudication. The Labour Court rejected the reference on the ground that the workmen have not been able to file the statement of claim in reference despite of passage of twelve years without offering any cogent explanation.

3. Being aggrieved and dissatisfied with the impugned award, the petitioners have preferred the present petitions.

4. Heard Mr.Gadhia, learned counsel for the petitioners and Ms.Samara, learned Assistant Government Pleader for the respondents. Perused the material placed on record.

5. Mr.Gadhia, learned counsel for the petitioners has submitted the same facts which are narrated in the memo of petitions and has also submitted that the Labour Court has not given proper opportunity to the petitioners, while passing the award and thereby committed an illegality and infirmity. He has submitted that the Labour Court has committed an error of law and facts in rejecting the reference on the ground of delay holding that the termination of the workmen was in violation of Section 25F of the ID Act. He has submitted that the provision of the ID Act does not prescribe any specific period of limitation for making a reference under Section 10 of the ID Act and, thus, mere delay or lapse of time, in absence of any express statutory bar, cannot defeat the statutory right of the workmen. He has submitted that the workmen were the employees and worked continuously and they were illegally terminated from the services.

5.1. Mr.Gadhia, learned counsel appearing for the petitioners has submitted that the petitions deserve to be allowed and the impugned award passed by the Labour Court deserves to be quashed and set aside.

6. Having considered the submissions made by learned counsel appearing for the respective parties and perused the impugned award passed by the Labour Court, it appears that the workmen were illegally terminated from the services and, therefore, they have raised the industrial dispute before the Assistant Labour Commissioner and, then the same was referred to the Labour Court for adjudication. It emerges from the record that the Labour Court rejected the reference on the ground that the workmen have not approached in time. On perusal of the impugned award, it appears that the Labour Court has not committed any error while passing the impugned award. That after the order of removal was passed in 2003, the reasons best known to the petitioners, the references were made in the year 2015 i.e. after almost 12 years and even during the pendency of the references, the petitioners have not taken any proper care to produce relevant material on record before the Labour Court. The Labour Court has recorded the finding and reasoning in para – 22 and 24 for explanation t