Research › Search › Judgment

Gujarat High Court · body

2016 DIGILAW 40 (GUJ)

Hansaben Bachubhai Solanki v. State of Gujarat

2016-01-07

K.M.THAKER, S.R.BRAHMBHATT

body2016
JUDGMENT : S.R. Brahmbhatt, J. 1. Heard learned advocate for the parties. The appellant, who happened to be the respondent in S.C.A. No. 3142 of 2014, has takenout these proceedings of L.P.A., challenging the order passed by the learned Single Judge of this Court on 8th September 2014, whereby the learned Single Judge, allowed the writ petition and made the rule absolute, quashing and setting aside the order of the labour Court, Bhavnagar dated 5th June 2013 in Reference (L.C.B.) No. 326 of 2005, which had effect of partly allowing the reference of present appellant and granting her 50% backwages from 24th January 2008 and reinstatement in service. The facts in brief as could be culledout from the proceedings would indicate that the appellant had been engaged for watering the plants and doing manual job in the office of the respondent - employer in the year 1978 and she was continued as such till 11th February 1986. Thereafter, without following due procedure of law, her services came to be terminated, which gave cause of action to the petitioner and petitioner approached the Conciliating Authorities. The conciliation attempts failed. However, the reference was declined. The petitioner, after the termination on 11th February 1986 approached the authorities for conciliation only on 22nd August 1991 and thereafter on 18th September 2001 and again on 4th August 2005. The last attempt succeeded and resulted into the reference being made to the Court, wherein it was numbered as Reference (L.C.B.) No. 326 of 2005, in which the Court partly allowed the reference and granted the reliefs. 2. Being aggrieved and dissatisfied with that order, the respondent employer challenged the same in this Court by way of writ petition being S.C.A. No. 3142 of 2014, which came to be allowed vide order dated 8th September 2014, against which the present appeal is preferred. 3. Learned counsel for the appellant, contended that the delay as such could not have been considered to be a factor, which would persuade the Courts in not granting any relief to the petitioner - workman. 4. 3. Learned counsel for the appellant, contended that the delay as such could not have been considered to be a factor, which would persuade the Courts in not granting any relief to the petitioner - workman. 4. The earlier two attempts of moving the machinery may be considered as the petitioner being mindful of her cause of action and pursuing the same and therefore, those two unsuccessful attempts may be taken into consideration to treat that the petitioner was pursuing the cause and therefore, when she succeed in the last attempt i.e. the third attempt in procuring the reference and when the labour Court based thereupon issued directions, the same ought not to have been interfered by the learned Single Judge of this Court. 5. Learned counsel for the appellant, thereafter contended that the breach of the provision of Industrial Disputes Act, 1947 is established and therefore, there was no question of any other relief but for relief of reinstatement and backwages which have been rightly granted by the Court and in that view of the matter, the appeal be allowed. 6. Mr. Tirthraj Pandya, learned AGP for the respondent State, submitted that the labour Court's order unfortunately did not considered the rejection of the State and the labour machinery and granted relief, which otherwise were not required to be granted. 7. He further submitted that the learned Single Judge has rightly taken into consideration the inordinate delay and latches in moving the machinery, which if appreciated in a proper perspective would dissuade this Court from granting any relief to the petitioner. 8. This Court has perused the order of the labour Court and that of the learned Single Judge of this Court and we are of the considered view that the order passed by the learned Single Judge does not deserved to be interfered with in any manner for the following reasons. "i) The glaring facts of the termination dating back to 11th February 1986 and the lack of any action on the part of the petitioner thereafter, if viewed in a proper perspective, would militate against the petitioner's claim for receiving any relief including relief under the I.D. Act, 1947, as though delay as such is not barring the claim. "i) The glaring facts of the termination dating back to 11th February 1986 and the lack of any action on the part of the petitioner thereafter, if viewed in a proper perspective, would militate against the petitioner's claim for receiving any relief including relief under the I.D. Act, 1947, as though delay as such is not barring the claim. But in the instant case, the inaction or the lack of approach for challenging the declining of making reference of the authority when it in fact happened twice before the reference being made could not have been ignored by the labour Court and it is not only delay as such, but the inordinate delay and its resultant effect upon the litigant's capacity to lead evidence and make defence are the grounds, which need to be borne in mind while entertaining such reference. ii) The learned Single Judge's observations qua the Government's liability to pay pension etc., even if assuming are not there, then also the entire approach of the petitioner and the inordinate delay and latches in pursuing the remedy dissuade us from interfering with the order of learned Single Judge. The order of learned Single Judge is otherwise also just and proper." Therefore, the present appeal being meritless and deserve to be rejected and accordingly the same is rejected. However, there shall be no order as to costs.