ORDER : HEMANT M. PRACHCHHAK, J. 1. Since common issue is involved in the captioned writ petitions, the same are heard analogously and are being decided by this common Order. 2. Present petitions are filed by the petitioner - Company under Articles 226 & 227 of the Constitution of India read with the provisions of the Industrial Disputes Act, 1947 (hereinafter be referred to as “the Act”) challenging the orders of the even date i.e. dated 20.09.2025 passed by the learned Judge (S.D.), Labour Court, Ahmedabad (hereinafter be referred to as “the Labour Court”) in respective Misc. Applications for condonation of delay filed by the petitioner-Company, whereby, the learned Judge has rejected the applications for condonation of delay. 3. Brief facts giving rise to the present petitions are that, the respective respondents (ex-workmen), who were engaged as documentation executive for sorting and packing of documents pursuant to work allotted by respondent No.2, raised an industrial dispute alleging illegal termination and filed Reference (L.C.A.) Nos. 389 of 2013, 390 of 2013, 392 of 2013 & 391 of 2013 respectively, before the Labour Court, Ahmedabad, against the petitioner Company. That, the petitioner-Company shifted its Ahmedabad office from Sarkhej to Motera, as a result, any correspondence issued at the old address was not received by the petitioner-Company. That, the Notices in the reference proceedings were received by Mr. Kaushik Anand Satpathy, an official of the petitioner-Company, who thereafter, left the services of the petitioner without handing over charge or informing the management or Ahmedabad branch about the pendency of the said reference. That, due to non-appearance caused by the departure of the concerned official and lack of internal communication, aforesaid References proceeded ex-parte against the petitioner-Company and respondent No.2 by the Labour Court, Ahmedabad. That, upon becoming aware of the ex-parte proceedings, the petitioner-Company engaged an Advocate and filed Restoration Applications before the Labour Court, Ahmedabad, whereby, the Labour Court allowed Restoration Applications and restored the References to its original file, and imposed costs of 10,000/-, which were duly paid by the petitioner to the respondents-workmen. That, after restoration, the petitioner-Company actively participated in the proceedings, engaged an Advocate, and filed its written statement, duly signed and verified on behalf of the petitioner-Company. That, after restoration, the petitioner-Company actively participated in the proceedings, engaged an Advocate, and filed its written statement, duly signed and verified on behalf of the petitioner-Company. That, the reference proceedings continued before the Labour Court and the petitioner remained under a bona fide belief that the matters were being duly represented and monitored by the Advocate engaged on its behalf. That, due to the COVID-19 pandemic, the petitioner- Company underwent staff rotation, restructuring, and changes in management personnel and newly appointed officials were not informed about the pendency of References. That, during this period, the Advocate representing the petitioner failed to inform the petitioner-Company about hearing dates, progress of proceedings, or any adverse orders and no effective notice of hearings was received by the petitioner at its correct address. That, the Labour Court passed an ex-parte Award in the aforesaid References allegedly due to non- appearance of the petitioner-Company. That, as per the respondents' claim, the ex-parte Award was published/sent to the parties; however, the said Award was never served upon the petitioner-Company at its correct or current address, nor any intimation was received from the Advocate and therefore, the petitioner-Company remained completely unaware of passing of the ex-parte Award dated 04/03/2022. That, the respondents-workmen filed respective Recovery Applications seeking recovery pursuant to the ex-parte Award dated 04/03/2022. That, the Notice of Recovery Applications was served for the first time upon the petitioner-Company at its Head Office at Gurgaon, Haryana and this was the first occasion on which the newly appointed management staff of the petitioner came to know that some order had been passed in the reference proceedings. That, upon receipt of the recovery notice, the newly appointed management officials instructed the Ahmedabad branch officials to verify the matter before the Labour Court. That, the petitioner's Ahmedabad officials visited the Labour Court in connection with the Recovery Applications and were informed that an ex-parte Award dated 04/03/2022 had been passed in References. That, the petitioner engaged a new Advocate at Ahmedabad and applied for certified copies of the entire proceedings as well as the ex-parte Award. That, the petitioner's Ahmedabad officials visited the Labour Court in connection with the Recovery Applications and were informed that an ex-parte Award dated 04/03/2022 had been passed in References. That, the petitioner engaged a new Advocate at Ahmedabad and applied for certified copies of the entire proceedings as well as the ex-parte Award. That, the petitioner obtained the certified copy of the ex-parte Award dated 04/03/2022 and the complete case record and filed Restoration Applications along with Condonation of Delay Applications seeking restoration of References, purely as a precaution to avoid technical objections and within the statutory framework of Rule 26(A) of the Gujarat Industrial Disputes Rules, 1966 read with Section 5 of the Limitation Act. That, the respondents-workmen opposed the condonation application by alleging presumed knowledge based on recovery proceedings, without producing any documentary evidence or specific dates of such alleged knowledge. The Labour Court passed the impugned orders rejecting Condonation of Delay Applications. 4. Being aggrieved and dissatisfied with (i) the ex-parte Award dated 04/03/2022 and (ii) the impugned orders dated 20/09/2025, the petitioner has preferred these petitions. 5. Heard learned counsel Mr. Darshan C. Panchal, appearing for the petitioner-Company. 6. Learned counsel Mr. Panchal has submitted that the impugned orders passed by the Labour Court are illegal, unjust, arbitrary, erroneous and contrary to the facts and material on record and the provisions of the Act and is based on assumption and presumption and therefore, are required to be quashed and set aside. He has submitted that the copy of the ex-parte award dated 04.03.2022 was never served upon the petitioner and it was not communicated to the petitioner and therefore, the award not officially served at the present address of the petitioner and when they came to know about the same, they had immediately approached the Labour Court by way of filing restoration applications alongwith applications for condonation of delay and under the circumstances narrated in the applications for condonation of delay, some delay has been occurred in preferring the restoration applications and thus, the applications were wrongly rejected by the Labour Court. He has further submitted that the address which was supplied in the Labour Court and the address at which the copy of the award was served, both are different places and therefore, under such circumstances, the petitioner was unable to get the intimation about the award passed by the Labour Court. He has further submitted that the address which was supplied in the Labour Court and the address at which the copy of the award was served, both are different places and therefore, under such circumstances, the petitioner was unable to get the intimation about the award passed by the Labour Court. He has further submitted that the copy of the award dated 04.03.2022 passed in the References were never served upon the petitioner and when the petitioner came to know about the same, they had immediately applied for certified copy on 26.06.2024 , which was received on 15.07.2024, however, the Labour Court has not considered these facts in its true and proper spirit while rejecting the applications and thus, the impugned orders passed by the Labour Court are completely erroneous, illegal and unjust. Over and above the grounds agitated in the memo of petitions, learned counsel Mr. Panchal has urged that the impugned orders be quashed and set aside and the present petitions be allowed. 7. I have heard the learned counsel appearing for the petitioner- Company and perused the material placed on record. On perusal of the impugned orders dated 20.09.2025 passed by the Labour Court, more particularly the observations made in para-5, the Labour Court has observed that in fact, the petitioner has not stated anything in the application with regard to the fact that from which source they had received information and on which date they had visited the Labour Court, since, when the petitioner had received the notice in the recovery application, the number of the reference and date of the award were already mentioned in the recovery application itself, however, the petitioner has stated contrary facts in the Misc. Applications and therefore, the Labour Court after observing all these facts in detail in para-5 has rejected the applications. On perusal of the impugned orders, it also appears that the applications were rejected on the ground of false facts narrated in the applications and there was no satisfactory reasons stated in the applications to explain the delay. The award was passed by the Labour Court on 04.03.2022 and the same was also published, however, the petitioner had approached the Labour Court by way of filing Misc. Applications for restoration after almost 27 months, contending that they were not served with the copy of the award, which is contrary to the facts on record. The award was passed by the Labour Court on 04.03.2022 and the same was also published, however, the petitioner had approached the Labour Court by way of filing Misc. Applications for restoration after almost 27 months, contending that they were not served with the copy of the award, which is contrary to the facts on record. Now it is well settled in the recent judgment of the Hon’ble Apex Court rendered in case of Shivamma (Dead) by LRS vs. Karnataka Housing Board and Ors., reported in 2025 (0) JX(SC) 1187 , which mandates that for condoning delay under Section 5 of the Limitation Act, 1963, a day-by-day explanation must be provided for the entire period from when the limitation period began until the actual date of filing, not just the period of delay itself, and thus, no proper explanation was given by the petitioner before the Labour Court and therefore, after observing all these facts, the Labour Court has rightly rejected the applications. Even the Labour Court has also observed that the petitioner has not stated true and correct facts in the application and contradictory facts were stated in the applications and therefore, after considering all these aspects, the Labour Court has passed the impugned orders, which is in consonance with the settled legal principles and there is no any infirmity or any irregularity found in the impugned orders passed by the Labour Court. Considering all these aspects, this Court is not inclined to entertain the present petitions and the same are required to be dismissed with cost of Rs.5,000/-, since the petitioner has stated incorrect facts in the applications as observed by the Labour Court. 8. In the result, the present petitions being devoid of any merits, deserve to be dismissed and accordingly, the present petitions are hereby dismissed. 8.1 The amount of cost of Rs. 5,000/- towards EACH petition is to be deposited by the petitioner-Company before the Registry of this Court, within a period of four weeks from the date of receipt of writ of this Order. Registry to place a copy of this order in each connected matter.