JUDGMENT : 1. Rule returnable forthwith. Learned advocate Mr. Rajesh Mankad waives service of rule on behalf of the respondent. 2. This petition is filed under Articles 226 and 227 of the Constitution of India, challenging the order passed by the learned Labour Court, Bhavnagar, in ID Miscellaneous Application No.10 of 2022 and the order dated 02.01.2020 passed in Reference (LCB) No.51 of 2014, whereby the reference filed by the respondent came to be allowed and the petitioner herein was directed to reinstate the respondent - workman to his original post with continuity of service and 30% back wages from the date of raising the dispute i.e. 25.11.2023. 3. The gist of the case is that the respondent herein filed Reference (LCB) No.51 of 2014, seeking reinstatement benefits with all other consequential benefits, wherein notice was issued and served upon the present petitioner on 24.02.2024. Thereafter, a statement of claim came to be filed, which was also supplied to the present petitioner. However, the petitioner did not appear, either in person or through a representative. Therefore, an ex-parte award came to be passed, directing the present petitioner to reinstate the respondent - workman with the above-stated benefits. Challenging the above ex-parte order, an application under Rule 26A of the Gujarat Industrial Disputes Act, 1947 was filed on 10.03.2022, which was also rejected by the learned Labour Court on 16.6.2023. Being aggrieved and dissatisfied with the above orders, the petitioner is before this Court. 4. Heard learned AGP Ms. Bhati and learned advocate Mr.Mankad. 5. Learned AGP Ms. Bhati states that the learned Reference Court has committed an error in allowing the reference, which was filed after a delay of 11 years, by granting the benefit of reinstatement with 30% back wages and continuity of service. Learned AGP Ms. Bhati states that no sufficient opportunity was provided by the learned Reference Court to adduce evidence and on the day when the arguments of the workman were concluded, the argument of the present petitioner was closed. Learned AGP Ms. Bhati states that without examining the case on merits and without examining the requirement of continuity of service, the learned Reference Court held that the respondent had worked from 1997-98 to 2002-03. Learned AGP Ms. Learned AGP Ms. Bhati states that without examining the case on merits and without examining the requirement of continuity of service, the learned Reference Court held that the respondent had worked from 1997-98 to 2002-03. Learned AGP Ms. Bhati, by drawing the attention to the roster produced along with the memo of the petition, submitted that as per the presence roster, the respondent completed 240 days only in the year 2001-02, the learned Reference Court, without examining the case on merits and without asking the respondent - workman to adduce evidence, awarded the reference in favour of the respondent. Learned AGP Ms. Bhati states that the learned Reference Court also committed an error in rejecting the application filed under Rule 26A of the Gujarat Industrial Disputes Act, 1947. Therefore, the petition is required to be allowed by setting aside both impugned orders. 6. On the other hand, learned advocate Mr. Mankad, appearing for the respondent, has submitted that as per the evidence of the petitioner, which is produced with the memo of the petition in the preceding year i.e. in the year 2001-02, the requirement of Section 25B has been completed. Learned advocate Mr. Mankad has drawn the attention of this Court to the averments made in the reply, which remained uncontroverted that immediately upon termination of service i.e. on 01.11.2002, a complaint came to be filed on 21.06.2003 before the learned Labour Court, which was registered as Complaint ID Case No.228 of 2003. Learned advocate Mr. Mankad submits that notices were issued to the petitioner for conciliation on 22.07.2003 and 05.08.2003. However, the petitioner did not respond at that point in time also. Learned advocate Mr. Mankad submits that as at the relevant point of time, the issue of whether the Forest Department, was an industry or not was in contest, the learned Conciliation Officer declined to make a reference. However, this fact was not brought to the notice of the learned Reference Court at the time of hearing the reference. Learned advocate Mr. Mankad submits that thereafter, the respondent - workman requested the authority to reopen Conciliation Case No.228 of 2003, but having failed, a fresh complaint came to be filed on 25.11.2013, which was registered as IDR No.102 of 2013 and subsequently registered as Reference Case No.51 of 2014. Learned advocate Mr. Learned advocate Mr. Mankad submits that thereafter, the respondent - workman requested the authority to reopen Conciliation Case No.228 of 2003, but having failed, a fresh complaint came to be filed on 25.11.2013, which was registered as IDR No.102 of 2013 and subsequently registered as Reference Case No.51 of 2014. Learned advocate Mr. Mankad submits that after considering the “live” dispute in the context of the decision rendered by the Apex Court in the case of Prabhakar Vs. Joint Director, Sericulture Department and others , 2015 (0) SCC 1348 , the learned Reference Court ruled in favour of the present respondent. Learned advocate Mr. Mankad submits that the restoration application, which was filed along with the condonation of delay, did not mention any grounds for not remaining present before the learned Reference Court and only the reference was sought to be set aside on the ground of not providing sufficient opportunity. Learned advocate Mr. Mankad submits that when notices were issued, it was the bounden duty of the State Government to remain present and project its case. Learned advocate Mr. Mankad submits that the application under Rule 26A, which was rejected on 16.06.2023, was challenged after a delay of 11 years before this Court. Learned advocate Mr. Mankad submits that the said attitude of the petitioner - employer suggests carelessness and a lethargic approach. Learned advocate Mr. Mankad submits that despite the respondent succeeding in the year 2020, the respondent has not been able to reap the benefits. Therefore, the present petition is also required to be dismissed. 7. Considering the submissions made by the learned advocates for the respective parties and the reasons assigned by the learned reference Court in Reference (LCB) No.51 of 2014 and Miscellaneous Application No.10 of 2022, it is undisputed fact that the respondent was serving as a Driver-cum-Peon before the petitioner - authority and the said work was perennial in nature. It was claimed in the statement of claim that he was drawing wages of Rs.1800/- and his service was terminated on 01.11.2022 without following due procedure under the Industrial Disputes Act, 1947. Claiming a breach of the provisions of Sections 25F, G, and H of the Act, a dispute was raised before the learned Reference Court, which was numbered as Reference (LCB) No.51 of 2014. To establish the claim, evidence was adduced before the learned Reference Court by the respondent below Exh. Claiming a breach of the provisions of Sections 25F, G, and H of the Act, a dispute was raised before the learned Reference Court, which was numbered as Reference (LCB) No.51 of 2014. To establish the claim, evidence was adduced before the learned Reference Court by the respondent below Exh. 70, which is the appointment order dated 22.06.1998. Exh.19 suggests that pursuant to the appointment order, the respondent reported for duty on 08.07.1998 and was treated as being on duty vide inverted No.49 dated 10.07.1998. The certificate issued by the Range Forest Officer dated 18.02.2002 was also produced before the learned Reference Court in support of his claim made in the statement of claim, appreciating the work of the respondent by the Higher Officers. On the basis of the said certificate, the learned Reference Court came to the conclusion that the respondent worked from 08.07.1998 till 18.02.2002. In addition, an application below Exh.8 was moved, seeking the production of documents in the nature of the attendance sheet for the preceding 12 months from 01.11.2002 and the seniority list as of 01.11.2022. As the petitioner did not appear before the learned Reference Court, the said production application, though ordered in favour of the respondent, remained non-complied with. 7.1 Regarding the contention of the delay of 11 years in filing the reference, it was contended by the learned advocate Mr. Mankad for the respondent that immediately upon termination, a complaint was filed, which was registered as Complaint ID No.228 of 2003, wherein notices were issued on 22.07.2003 and05.08.2003. This statement remained uncontroverted by the petitioner and therefore, this Court has no hesitation in accepting the above statement. 7.2 After considering the evidence, a detailed award was passed by the learned Reference Court, granting the relief of reinstatement with 30% back wages and continuity of service from the date of raising the dispute, i.e. 25.11.2013. Challenging the above ex-parte award, an application was moved under Rule 26A of the Act. However, no reasons were stated by the petitioner for not remaining present before the learned Reference Court at the time of hearing the reference. The learned Reference Court noted that the notice issued, was served through a bailiff on 24.06.2014 and the statement of claim, which was filed, was also sent to the petitioner - employer, as revealed from Exh.25. However, no reasons were stated by the petitioner for not remaining present before the learned Reference Court at the time of hearing the reference. The learned Reference Court noted that the notice issued, was served through a bailiff on 24.06.2014 and the statement of claim, which was filed, was also sent to the petitioner - employer, as revealed from Exh.25. The learned Reference Court concluded that without any cause, the petitioner failed to appear before the learned Reference Court. Therefore, the application preferred under Rule 26A does not require to be entertained. 7.3 It is required to be noted that the application filed under Rule 26A was challenged before this Court after a period of more than 11 years. The petitioner, being a State, is a model employer and the impression that the petitioner has a privileged status must be removed, as the law of limitation does not differ from person to person, and the Courts help those who are vigilant and “do not slumber over their rights.” In that background, this Court does not find any merit in the submission made by the learned AGP Ms. Bhati for setting aside the impugned orders, this petition deserves to be dismissed 7.4 Resultantly, this petition is dismissed. 7.5 The petitioner herein is directed to comply with the order passed by the learned reference Court in Reference (L.C.B.) No.51 of 2014, granting the relief of reinstatement with 30%back wages, within a period of 12 weeks from today. 8. Rule is discharged.