Research › Search › Judgment

Gujarat High Court · body

2018 DIGILAW 198 (GUJ)

S. T. KARMACHARI UNION v. DIVISIONAL CONTROLLER

2018-01-22

BIREN VAISHNAV, M.R.SHAH

body2018
JUDGMENT : M.R. SHAH, J. 1. Present application under Section 5 of the Limitation Act has been preferred by the applicant herein – original respondent no.1 requesting to condone the delay of 130 days in preferring the Letters Patent Appeal against the impugned order passed by the learned Single Judge in Special Civil Application No.9655/2016 by which the learned Single Judge has allowed the said petition preferred by respondent no.1 – GSRTC – employer and has quashed and set aside the judgment and award passed by the learned Industrial Tribunal, Vadodara dated 22/09/2015 in Reference (IT) No.3/2010. 2. We have heard Shri Brahmbhatt, learned advocate appearing on behalf of the applicant. The only explanation in the application explaining the delay in paragraph 5 reads as under; “It is submitted that there was not any intention on the part of applicant to cause delay but applicant was in service of respondent no.1 and he is working at Bodeli depot of Chhotaudaipur District and his wife was sick and he was not having sufficient finance due to his meager income, therefore, he could not approach his advocate immediately therefore, delay has occurred due to financial problems of applicant, therefore, in the interest of justice the delay may be condoned.” 3. No documentary evidence and /or particulars are given with respect to the sickness of the wife of the workmen. So far as the averments made in the application that the workmen was not having sufficient finance due to his meager income is concerned, learned advocate for the petitioner has stated that the workmen must be earning at least Rs.18,000/- to Rs.20,000/- per month. The aforesaid amount cannot be said to be meager income. The averments made in paragraph 5 can be said to be too vague. 4. To satisfy ourselves prima facie whether there is any merit in the Appeal so that if it is found that there is any merit in the Appeal the meritorious case may not have to suffer and if ultimately it is found that the Appeal lacks merits, no purpose will be served in allowing the application for condonation of delay and thereafter to dismiss the Appeal, it is required to be noted that as such what was challenged before the learned Industrial Tribunal was the order passed by the disciplinary authority of stoppage of two increments. The order of the disciplinary authority was of 11/03/1992. The order of the disciplinary authority was of 11/03/1992. The order passed by the first appellate authority was of 25/09/1992 and the order of the second appellate authority was of 18/04/1994. The workmen raised the industrial dispute after a period of 16 years and the Reference was made in the year 2010. Considering the aforesaid and considering the decision of the Hon’ble Supreme Court in the case of Assistant Engineer, Rajasthan State Agriculture Marketing Board, Sub Division Kota Vs. Mohan Lal reported in (2013) 14 SCC 543 (paragraph 19), when the learned Single Judge has allowed the petition preferred by the Management and has quashed and set aside the judgment and award passed by the learned Industrial Tribunal quashing and setting the order of punishment imposed by the disciplinary authority, which was passed in the month of March, 1992, it cannot be said that the learned Single Judge has committed any error. The dispute before the learned Industrial Tribunal was with respect to the stale claim and it cannot be said that there was a live dispute when the Reference was made in the year 2010. 5. Shri Brahmbhatt, learned advocate appearing on behalf of the applicant has relied upon the decisions of the Hon’ble Supreme Court in the case of M.R. Gupta Vs. Union of India and Others reported in AIR 1996 SC 669 ; in the case of State of Madhya Pradesh and Others Vs. Yogendra Shrivastava reported in (2010) 12 SCC 538 and the decision of the Hon’ble Supreme Court in the case of Shiv Dass Vs. Union of India and Others reported in (2007) 2 SCC (L & S) 395 in support of his submission that the learned Single Judge ought not to have allowed the petition and ought not to have quashed and set aside the award passed by the learned Industrial Tribunal on the ground of delay in raising the dispute. However, considering the aforesaid three decisions, we are of the opinion that none of the aforesaid decisions shall be applicable to the facts of the case on hand. On the contrary, the decision of the Hon’ble Supreme Court in the case of Mohan Lal (Supra), which has been considered by the learned Single Judge shall be applicable to the facts of the case on hand. Under the circumstances, we are of the opinion that the Appeal lacks merits. 6. On the contrary, the decision of the Hon’ble Supreme Court in the case of Mohan Lal (Supra), which has been considered by the learned Single Judge shall be applicable to the facts of the case on hand. Under the circumstances, we are of the opinion that the Appeal lacks merits. 6. In view of the above and for the reasons stated hereinabove, present application for condonation of delay deserves to be dismissed and is accordingly dismissed. In view of dismissal of the application for condonation of delay, Letters Patent Appeal (Stamp) No.2644/2017 stands dismissed.