Gujarat High Court
State Of Gujarat vs Bharatbhai Ramjibhai Rathod & on 7 June, 2016
Author: R.Subhash Reddy
Bench: R.Subhash Reddy, Vipul M. Pancholi
C/CA/4458/2016 ORDER
IN THE HIGH COURT OF GUJARAT AT AHMEDABAD
CIVIL APPLICATION (FOR CONDONATION OF DELAY) NO. 4458 of 2016
In LETTERS PATENT APPEAL (STAMP NUMBER) NO. 541 of 2016
In SPECIAL CIVIL APPLICATION NO. 14147 of 2013
With
LETTERS PATENT APPEAL (STAMP NUMBER) NO. 541 of 2016
In
SPECIAL CIVIL APPLICATION NO. 14147 of 2013
With
CIVIL APPLICATION (STAMP NUMBER) NO. 4322 of 2016
In
LETTERS PATENT APPEAL (STAMP NUMBER) NO. 541 of 2016
==========================================================
STATE OF GUJARAT....Applicant(s)
Versus
BHARATBHAI RAMJIBHAI RATHOD & 1....Respondent(s)
==========================================================
Appearance:
MR DHAWAN JAISWAL, AGP for the Applicant(s) No. 1
==========================================================
CORAM: HONOURABLE THE CHIEF JUSTICE MR. R.SUBHASH
REDDY
and
HONOURABLE MR.JUSTICE VIPUL M. PANCHOLI
Date : 07/06/2016
ORAL ORDER
(PER : HONOURABLE THE CHIEF JUSTICE MR. R.SUBHASH REDDY)
1. This civil application is filed to condone the delay of 900 days in filing the Letters Patent Appeal being aggrieved by the order of the learned Single Judge dated 7.10.2013 passed in Special Civil Application No.14147 of Page 1 of 4 HC-NIC Page 1 of 4 Created On Thu Jun 09 00:55:01 IST 2016 C/CA/4458/2016 ORDER 2013. By the aforesaid order, learned Single Judge has dismissed the Special Civil Application filed by the appellant-State of Gujarat wherein they have challenged the award passed by the Labour Court, Anand dated 30.5.2012 passed in Reference (LCA) Nos.77 of 2000 and 124 of 2000, wherein the Labour Court ordered reinstatement of the respondent-workman with continuity but without back wages.
2. The respondent-workman was initially appointed in the year 1988. On the ground that he was terminated from service without applying the provisions of the Industrial Disputes Act, 1947, he made a complaint before the Assistant Labour Commissioner, Anand which dispute was referred to the Labour Court for adjudication. The Labour Court, after considering the matter, has passed orders for reinstatement with continuity of service and without back wages. The said award was subject matter of challenge by the appellant before the learned Single Judge and Special Civil Application was dismissed as early as on 7.10.2013.
3. In the application supported by affidavit to explain the delay, it is stated that the copy of the order was received on 28.10.2013. Thereafter, on 7.12.2013, the applicant has Page 2 of 4 HC-NIC Page 2 of 4 Created On Thu Jun 09 00:55:01 IST 2016 C/CA/4458/2016 ORDER forwarded proposal to the government which in turn was sent to the Deputy Executive Engineer who was retired and the same was handed over to the Deputy Executive Engineer, Khambhat Irrigation Sub-Division Department. It is also stated that thereafter on 27.8.2014, the Section Officer, Narmada Water Resource and Kalpsar Department wrote letter to the Superintending Engineer, Mahi Irrigation, Circle-Nadiad to file Letters Patent Appeal challenging the order dated 7.10.2013. Further, in the application itself, it is stated that as the concerned Deputy Executive Engineer was engaged in other irrigation works from April, 2015 to June, 2015 and further the concerned officer was in-charge of Bhal area and during the period from June, 2015 to October, 2015, he was busy with other works, the matter was not persuaded.
4. From the petition, it is clear that when the recovery application is filed by the respondents in January, 2016, thereafter effective steps are taken by the appellant to pursue the appeal. Though the order was passed as early as on 7.10.2013, the matter was not persuaded nearly for three years and the abnormal delay is sought to be explained in this civil application without assigning valid reasons. The appellant has prayed to condone the said delay Page 3 of 4 HC-NIC Page 3 of 4 Created On Thu Jun 09 00:55:01 IST 2016 C/CA/4458/2016 ORDER with vague averments that the concerned officer was busy with other works. When the decision was already taken for filing the appeal, there is no reason for such delay. It appears that only after the notice is served in the recovery proceedings, reinstatement of the workman was made in the month of March, 2016. In absence of any valid reasons to explain the abnormal delay of 900 days, we are of the view that this is not a fit case to condone the delay.
5. For the said reasons, this civil application is devoid of merits and the same is dismissed. Consequently the Letters Patent Appeal and Civil Application also stand dismissed.
(R. SUBHASH REDDY, CJ) (VIPUL M. PANCHOLI, J.) Srilatha Page 4 of 4 HC-NIC Page 4 of 4 Created On Thu Jun 09 00:55:01 IST 2016