JUDGMENT : M. K. Thakker, J. 1. Rule returnable forthwith. Learned advocate Ms. Dipmala Desai waives service of rule on behalf of the respondent. 2. With the consent of the parties, instead of deciding the application for stay, this Court has proceeded to hear the main matter on merits. 3. The present petition is filed under Articles 226 and 227 of the Constitution of India thereby challenging the award passed by the learned Labour Court, Ahmedabad in Reference LCA No.514 of 2014 passed below Exh.21 dated 18.04.2022 and the order passed below Exh.9 dated 30.03.2016. 4. It is the case of the present petitioner that as per the allegations made by the respondent in the statement of claim, the respondent was serving with the petitioner - establishment on the post of Peon / Helper since many years and he was getting daily wages of Rs.225/-. It is alleged that the service of the respondent was terminated on 11.01.2012. Challenging the termination, the dispute was raised before the learned Assistant Commissioner, which was ultimately culminated into the reference, learned Reference Court has decided the reference in favour of the respondent ex-parte as the petitioner – establishment did not appear, though he received the notice. Thereafter the restoration application came to be filed before the leaned Labour Court under Rule 26A of the Industrial Disputes Gujarat Act, seeking the condonation of delay of 3 years and 3 months. Learned Reference Court has, after perusing the reasons for delay, has rejected the application for condonation of delay vide order dated 18.04.2022, which is the subject matter of challenge before this Court. 5. Heard learned advocate Mr. Jani for the petitioner and learned advocate Ms. Desai for the respondent. 6. Learned advocate Mr. Jani has submitted that after ex- parte award passed, the notice was received in the application filed under Section 33(C)(1), being a Recovery Application No.68 of 2019 and on receiving the notice dated 06.02.2020, the petitioner came into the knowledge with regard to the ex-parte award. Learned advocate Mr. Jani submits that thereafter the restoration application came to be filed on 15.10.2020. It transpires that there was a delay of 7 months and 10 days, if it would be counted from the date of knowledge. Learned advocate Mr. Jani submits that thereafter the restoration application came to be filed on 15.10.2020. It transpires that there was a delay of 7 months and 10 days, if it would be counted from the date of knowledge. However, learned Labour Court has come to the conclusion that there was a delay of 3 years, 3 months and 11 days in filing the application and that also remains unexplained. Learned advocate Mr. Jani submits that so far as the merits of the case are concerned before the learned Assistant Commissioner, when the hearing had taken place, offer was made to the present respondent - employee to resume duty, which was recorded initially by the learned Assistant Labour Commissioner and thereafter it was struck off. However, learned Labour Court, without having considered the above aspect, has awarded the reference in favour of the respondent, therefore, the same is required to be interfered with and the petition is required to be allowed. 7. Per contra, learned advocate Ms. Desai submits that as per the allegations made by the present petitioner, the report submitted by learned Assistant Labour Commissioner dated 16.06.2014 is alleging that there is a manipulation in the report. Learned advocate Ms. Desai submits that learned Labour Court, while rejecting the application for condonation of delay, has concluded that this would not be allegations against the present respondent, but the present petitioner had doubted on the integrity of the learned Assistant Labour Commissioner without any reasons. Learned advocate Ms. Desai submits that except this ground, no other reasons are stated either in the application for condonation of delay nor in the application for restoration. Learned advocate Ms. Desai submits that with regard to the merits of the case as also the petitioner is unable to point out any legal point suggesting that the respondent is not entitled for the relief of reinstatement, which was awarded by the Reference Court. Learned advocate Ms. Desai submits that though reference order is passed on 30.03.2016, but after 9 years also, the petitioner remained unsucceeded in getting the fruits of the award. Learned advocate Ms. Desai submits that in view of above, more particularly, in absence of any legal ground, the petition deserves to be dismissed and the impugned order is required to be upheld. 8. Desai submits that though reference order is passed on 30.03.2016, but after 9 years also, the petitioner remained unsucceeded in getting the fruits of the award. Learned advocate Ms. Desai submits that in view of above, more particularly, in absence of any legal ground, the petition deserves to be dismissed and the impugned order is required to be upheld. 8. Having considered the arguments advanced by learned advocates for the respective parties as well as on perusing the records, which is part of the petition before this Court. It emerges that on raising the dispute before learned Assistant Commissioner, the dispute was referred to the learned Labour Court to decide that whether the respondent is entitled for the relief of reinstatement with back wages and all consequential benefits or not. As per the claim of the respondent, he was serving on the post of Peon / Helper and getting the monthly wages of Rs.225/- per day and his service was terminated on 11.01.2012. It is observed by the learned Labour Court, while passing the award, that though the notice was served through the Bailiff, however, the petitioner remained absent during the proceeding before the learned Labour Court. In absence of the petitioner, the learned Labour Court has awarded the reference in favour of the respondent on 30.03.2016, granting the relief of reinstatement with continuity and 100% back wages. Thereafter, the application below Exh.1 came to be filed being the Delay Condonation Application No.87 of 2020, seeking condonation of delay in filing the application for restoration under Rule 26A of the Industrial Disputes Gujarat Rules. 9. It is stated by the petitioner in the said application that the petitioner came into the knowledge with regard to the impugned award on receiving the notice of Recovery C-1 Application No.68 of 2019 and thereafter certified copy was applied on 29.09.2020, which was received on 05.10.2020 and thereafter the application came to be filed on 15.10.2020. It is contended by the present petitioner that as from the date of knowledge, the delay of 7 months is caused, the same is required to be condoned. On referring the application, which is part of the record, there was no contention with regard to the application filed under Section 33(C)(2), being Recovery Application No.534 of 2017. It is contended by the present petitioner that as from the date of knowledge, the delay of 7 months is caused, the same is required to be condoned. On referring the application, which is part of the record, there was no contention with regard to the application filed under Section 33(C)(2), being Recovery Application No.534 of 2017. The application being Recovery C-2 Application No.534 of 2017 was filed on 09.05.2017 and the notice was issued by the learned Court, was received by the present petitioner on 05.06.2017 and the said recovery application was ordered in favour of the present respondent on 28.09.2018. However, till date, though petitioner was in the knowledge with regard to the impugned award, has remained silent and only on receiving the copy of the application filed under Section 33(C)(1), the restoration application was filed along with condonation of delay application thereto without disclosing the relevant facts of filing of application under Section 33(C)(2). On referring the reasons assigned for condonation of delay in the application, not only insufficient, but not a word mentioned explaining the delay in remaining the absent before the learned Labour Court or not filing the restoration application in time. In absence of any cogent and sufficient reasons, the condonation of delay cannot be granted mechanically. 10. On referring the reasons assigned for condonation of delay in the application, not only insufficient, but not a word mentioned explaining the delay in remaining the absent before the learned Labour Court or not filing the restoration application in time. In absence of any cogent and sufficient reasons, the condonation of delay cannot be granted mechanically. 10. The guidelines issued by the Apex Court, while condoning the delay, in the case of Pathapati Subba Reddy (Died) By Lrs And Vs Special Deputy Collector, reported in 2024 SCC OnLine SC 513, is reproduced hereunder: “*** (i) Law of limitation is based upon public policy that there should be an end to litigation by forfeiting the right to remedy rather than the right itself; (ii) A right or the remedy that has not been exercised or availed of for a long time must come to an end or cease to exist after a fixed period of time; (iii) The provisions of the Limitation Act have to be construed differently, such as Section 3 has to be construed in a strict sense whereas Section 5 has to be construed liberally; (iv) In order to advance substantial justice, though liberal approach, justice-oriented approach or cause of substantial justice may be kept in mind but the same cannot be used to defeat the substantial law of limitation contained in Section 3 of the Limitation Act; (v) Courts are empowered to exercise discretion to condone the delay if sufficient cause had been explained, but that exercise of power is discretionary in nature and may not be exercised even if sufficient cause is established for various factors such as, where there is inordinate delay, negligence and want of due diligence; (vi) Merely some persons obtained relief in similar matter, it does not mean that others are also entitled to the same benefit if the court is not satisfied with the cause shown for the delay in filing the appeal; (vii) Merits of the case are not required to be considered in condoning the delay; and (viii) Delay condonation application has to be decided on the parameters laid down for condoning the delay and condoning the delay for the reason that the conditions have been imposed, tantamounts to disregarding the statutory provision.” 11. Having considered the ratio of above decision, this Court is of the considered opinion that in absence of any genuine or sufficient cause for not approaching to the Court in time, delay cannot be condoned. Hence, the order passed by the learned Labour Court does not required any interference with. 12. Resultantly, present petition is dismissed. ORDER IN CIVIL APPLICATION (FOR STAY) NO. 1 of 2025 In view of the order passed in the main matter, the connected civil application does not survive and the same stands disposed of accordingly.