IN THE HIGH COURT OF GUJARAT AT AHMEDABAD R/SPECIAL CIVIL APPLICATION NO. 14154 of 2022 ================================================================

HARSHADGIRI AMRUTGIRI GOSWAMI Versus DY. EXECUTIVE ENGINEER, IRRIGATION SUB DIVISION I ================================================================

Appearance:

MR YOGEN N PANDYA(5766) for the Petitioner(s) No. 1 MS ROSHNI PATEL, ASST. GOVERNMENT PLEADER for the Respondent(s) No. 1 ================================================================

CORAM:HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE HEMANT M.

PRACHCHHAK Date : 10/02/2026

ORAL ORDER

1. Present petition is filed by the petitioner-employee 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 judgment and award dated 24.10.2019 passed by the learned Presiding Officer, Labour Court, Rajkot (hereinafter be referred to as “the Labour Court”) in Reference (LCR) No. 80 of 2014 whereby, the learned Judge has rejected the Reference preferred by the petitioner-workman solely on the ground of delay.

2. Brief facts giving rise to the present petition are that, the petitioner joined respondent-authority as a daily rated employee from 03.01.1997 and worked upto 31.12.1998. That, the petitioner came to be terminated without following due procedure and therefore, the petitioner raised an industrial dispute which ultimately, came to be referred to the Labour Court, Rajkot vide Reference (LCR) No. 80 of 2014. After hearing all the concerned parties and after examining oral as well as documentary evidence produced on record, the Labour Court passed the impugned judgment and award dated 24.10.2019 in Reference (LCR) No. 80 of 2014, whereby, the learned Judge has rejected the Reference preferred by the petitioner-workman solely on the ground of delay.

3. Being aggrieved and dissatisfied with the impugned award dated 24.10.2019 passed by the learned Presiding Officer, Labour Court, Rajkot in Reference (LCR) No. 80 of 2014, the petitioner has preferred this petition under Articles 226 & 227 of the Constitution of India read with the provisions of Industrial Disputes Act, 1947.

4. Heard Mr. Yogen Pandya, learned counsel appearing for the petitioner-workman and Ms. Roshni Patel, learned Assistant Government Pleader, appearing for the respondent - State Authorities. 5. Learned counsel Mr. Pandya has submitted that the impugned judgment and award passed by the Labour Court is illegal, unjust, arbitrary, erroneous and contrary to the facts and material on record and the provisions of the Act and therefore, is required to be quashed and set aside. He has submitted that the Labour Court has committed an error in rejecting the reference of the petitioner on the ground of delay and thereby holding that since the petitioner has raised the dispute after considerable long period, it can be presumed that the petitioner has voluntarily foregone his claim for reinstatement. He has further submitted that the Labour Court has committed a serious error in holding that the employee has failed to prove that there was a violation of provisions of Sections 25F, G and H of the Act. He has submitted that the petitioner was not provided an opportunity to produce relevant documentary evidence to show that other identical similarly situated employees, who had raised similar grievance well in advance, has been granted an award of reinstatement and thus, the award passed by the Labour Court is erroneous, illegal and unjust. Over and above the grounds agitated in the memo of petition, learned counsel Mr. Pandya has urged that the impugned judgment and award passed by the Labour Court is required to be quashed and set aside and the present petition is required to be allowed.

6. As against that, Ms. Patel, learned AGP appearing for the respondent-State has opposed the present petition and submitted that the Labour Court has not committed any error in passing the impugned judgme