Research › Search › Judgment

Gujarat High Court · body

2017 DIGILAW 1869 (GUJ)

Ramsing Mansing Thakor v. General Manager

2017-12-05

BIREN VAISHNAV, M.R.SHAH

body2017
JUDGMENT : M.R. SHAH, J. Present application under Section 5 of the Limitation Act has been preferred by the applicant herein - original petitioner requesting to condone the delay of 110 days caused in preferring the Letters Patent Appeal challenging the impugned order passed by the learned Single Judge in Special Civil Application No. 7667/2017 by which the learned Single Judge has dismissed the said petition preferred by the original workman and has confirmed the judgment and award passed by the learned Industrial Tribunal cum Labour Court, Ahmedabad in Reference (CGITA) No. 129/2006 by which the learned Tribunal declined the reference inter alia on the ground that it was delayed by 18 years as the services of the workman were terminated on 21.07.1984 and the workman approached the Conciliation Officer in the year 2002. 2. At the outset it is required to be noted that even the certified copy of the impugned order came to be applied beyond the period of limitation prescribed for preferring the appeal. The averments in para 2 can be said to be too vague. Therefore, as such sufficient cause has not been shown and the delay of 110 days has not been sufficiently and properly explained. 3. Even to satisfy ourselves prima facie we have heard learned Counsel appearing on behalf of the applicant - original petitioner on merits also. We have considered and gone through the impugned order passed by the learned Single Judge as well as the judgment and award passed by the learned Tribunal. It does not appear to be in dispute that according to even workman his services were terminated on 21.07.1984 and he approached the Conciliation Officer for the first time in the year 2002 i.e. after a period of approximately 18 years. Therefore, at the time when the concerned workman approached the Conciliation Officer, it cannot be said that there was any live dispute in existence. Therefore, as such the learned Tribunal rightly rejected the reference and the same is rightly confirmed by the learned Single Judge. The submission on behalf of the applicant that once the reference was made, which was as such pursuant to the order passed by this Court, thereafter the learned Tribunal ought not to have and/or could not have rejected the reference on the ground of limitation is concerned, the aforesaid has no substance. The submission on behalf of the applicant that once the reference was made, which was as such pursuant to the order passed by this Court, thereafter the learned Tribunal ought not to have and/or could not have rejected the reference on the ground of limitation is concerned, the aforesaid has no substance. Even after the reference is made it is for the concerned Tribunal/Labour Court to consider whether there is any live dispute or not. In the present case there was a huge delay of 18 years. Under the circumstances, even on merits also, the Letters Patent Appeal lacks merits. Therefore, to issue Rule in the present application for condonation of delay, call upon other side and thereafter to condone the delay and thereafter to dismiss the appeal would be exercise in futility. 4. In view of the above and for the reasons stated above, present Civil Application for condondation of delay fails and the same deserves to be dismissed and is, accordingly, dismissed. 5. In view of dismissal of Civil Application for condonation of delay, Letters Patent Appeal (Stamp) No.1792/2017 also deserves to be dismissed and is, accordingly, dismissed on the ground of limitation.