Gujarat High Court
Divisional Controller vs Ambalal Kabhai Patel on 1 August, 2017
Author: Paresh Upadhyay
Bench: Paresh Upadhyay
C/SCA/10706/2016 ORDER
IN THE HIGH COURT OF GUJARAT AT AHMEDABAD
SPECIAL CIVIL APPLICATION NO. 10706 of 2016
================================================================
DIVISIONAL CONTROLLER ....Petitioner
Versus
AMBALAL KABHAI PATEL ....Respondent
================================================================
Appearance:
MR HARDIK C RAWAL, ADVOCATE for the Petitioner
MR GK RATHOD, ADVOCATE for the Respondent
================================================================
CORAM: HONOURABLE MR.JUSTICE PARESH UPADHYAY
Date : 01/08/2017
ORAL ORDER
1. Challenge in this petition is made by the employer to the award passed by the Industrial Tribunal, Vadodara dated 16.08.2014 recorded on Reference (I.T.) No. 41 of 2009.
2. Mr. Raval, learned Advocate for the petitioner Corporation has submitted that, apart from the fact that, on merits there was no case to interfere, in any case there was delay of more than two decades in approaching the Tribunal. It is submitted that this was fatal and the Tribunal ought not to have entertained such a stale claim.
3. On the other hand, Mr. Songara, learned Advocate for Mr. Rathod, learned Advocate for the respondent has submitted that though there was some delay on the part of the Page 1 of 3 HC-NIC Page 1 of 3 Created On Wed Aug 02 02:34:32 IST 2017 C/SCA/10706/2016 ORDER respondent, on merits he had good case and the Tribunal has not committed any error by allowing the Reference. It is submitted that this petition be dismissed.
4. Having heard learned advocates for the respective parties and having considered the material on record this Court finds as under.
4.1 It is not in dispute that there was delay of more than two decades in approaching the Tribunal, on the part of the workman. This itself is the ground, on which the Tribunal should have rejected the Reference.
4.2 Reference can be made to the decision of the Supreme Court of India in the case of Assistant Engineer, Rajasthan State Agriculture Marketing Board, Sub Division, Kota V/s. Mohan Lal reported in (2013) 14 SCC 543. Para 19 of the said decision is relevant which reads as under :
"19. We are clearly of the view that though the Limitation Act, 1963 is not applicable to the reference made under the ID Act but delay in raising industrial dispute is definitely an important circumstance which the Labour Court must keep in view at the time of exercise of discretion irrespective of whether or not such objection has been raised by the other side. The legal position laid down by this Court in Gitam Singh that before exercising its judicial discretion, the Labour Court has to keep in view all relevant factors including the mode and manner of appointment, nature of employment, length of service, the ground on which termination has been set aside and the delay in Page 2 of 3 HC-NIC Page 2 of 3 Created On Wed Aug 02 02:34:32 IST 2017 C/SCA/10706/2016 ORDER raising industrial dispute before grant of relief in an industrial dispute, must be invariably followed."
4.3 Reference also needs to be made to the decision of the Division Bench of this Court in Letters Patent Appeal No.466 of 2016 (order dated 14.06.2016). It was inter alia observed in para:6 of the said decision that delay of about seven years in raising dispute without any explanation was fatal. In the present case also, there is no explanation for delay.
4.4 This petition therefore needs to be allowed on that count alone. It is observed that this Court has not gone into other contentions on merits.
5. For the above reasons, the following order is passed.
5.1 This petition is allowed.
5.2 The impugned award passed by the Industrial Tribunal, Vadodara dated 16.08.2014 recorded on Reference (I.T.) No. 41 of 2009 is quashed and set aside.
(PARESH UPADHYAY, J.) SHRIJIT PILLAI/44 Page 3 of 3 HC-NIC Page 3 of 3 Created On Wed Aug 02 02:34:32 IST 2017