Allowed

Devesh Suryaprakash Upadhyay v. Videocon Narmada Glass Ltd. (Old Name Videocon Narmada E.L

Gujarat HC2 Dec 2014SCA/4811/2006

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

The High Court of Gujarat, treating this as an Article 227 writ petition, quashed the Labour Court's orders dismissing an industrial dispute reference ex-parte and rejecting an application for condonation of delay. The Court restored the reference (LCB No.379 of 1997) and directed the Labour Court to decide it on merits within one year.

What did the court decide?

The impugned orders of the Labour Court dismissing the reference ex-parte and rejecting condonation of delay are quashed; the reference is restored and remanded with a direction to decide on merits wi

Devesh Suryaprakash Upadhyay Vs Videocon Narmada… — Service and Employment | Gujarat HC (2014)

¶1

C/SCA/4811/2006 JUDGMENT

¶2

IN THE HIGH COURT OF GUJARAT AT AHMEDABAD

¶3

SPECIAL CIVIL APPLICATION NO. 4811 of 2006

¶4

FOR APPROVAL AND SIGNATURE:

¶5

HONOURABLE MR.JUSTICE M.R. SHAH Sd/-

¶6

================================================================

¶7

1 Whether Reporters of Local Papers may be allowed to see the judgment ?

¶8

2 To be referred to the Reporter or not ?

¶9

3 Whether their Lordships wish to see the fair copy of the judgment ?

¶10

4 Whether this case involves a substantial question of law as to the interpretation of the Constitution of India, 1950 or any order made thereunder ?

¶11

5 Whether it is to be circulated to the civil judge ?

¶12

================================================================

¶13

DEVESH SURYAPRAKASH UPADHYAY....Petitioner(s)

¶14

Versus

¶15

VIDEOCON NARMADA GLASS LTD. (OLD NAME VIDEOCON NARMADA E.L....Respondent(s)

¶16

================================================================

¶17

Appearance:

¶18

MR TR MISHRA, ADVOCATE for the Petitioner(s) No. 1 MR UT MISHRA, ADVOCATE for the Petitioner(s) No. 1 MR KM PATEL, ADVOCATE for the Respondent(s) No. 1

¶19

MR RISHIN PATEL FOR VARUN K.PATEL, ADVOCATE for Respondent

¶20

================================================================

¶21

CORAM: HONOURABLE MR.JUSTICE M.R. SHAH

¶22

Date : 02/12/2014 ORAL JUDGMENT

¶23

Page 1 of 6

¶24

C/SCA/4811/2006 JUDGMENT

¶25

1.00. By way of this petition under Article 227 of the Constitution of India, the petitioner has prayed for appropriate writ, order and/or direction to quash and set aside the impugned order passed by the learned Presiding Officer, Labour Court, Bharuch in Misc.Civil Application No.47 of 2004 in Reference (LCB) No.379 of 1997 dated 13/1/2006 by which the application of the petitioner to condone the delay in preferring the restoration application to restore Reference (LCB) No.379 of 1997 which came to be dismissed for nonprosecution. By way of an amendment, the petitioner has prayed to quash and set aside the order dated 30/6/2005 passed in Reference (LCB) No.379 of 1997 by which the learned Labour Court has dismissed the said reference exparte.

¶26

2.00. That the petitioner herein raised an industrial dispute challenging his termination which was referred to the Labour Court, Bharuch for adjudication being Reference (LCB) No.379 of 1997. It appears that thereafter the petitioner workman submitted Statement of Claim. However, thereafter the petitioner did not appear before the learned Labour Court though the matter was adjourned time and again and therefore, by order dated 30/6/2005, the Labour Court rejected the said reference by observing that the petitioner seems to be not interested in proceeding further with the reference. It appears that thereafter the petitioner submitted an application to quash and set aside ex-parte Judgement and Award and to restore the said reference. There was a delay of 41 days in preferring the restoration application being Misc.Civil Application No.47 of 2004 and by the impugned

¶27

Page 2 of 6

¶28

C/SCA/4811/2006 JUDGMENT

¶29

order dated 13/1/2006, the learned Reference Court has dismissed the said application by observing that there is no sufficient cause shown.

¶30

2.01. Feeling aggrieved and dissatisfied with the order passed by the learned Presiding Officer, Labour Court, Bharuch in rejecting the application for condonation of delay as well as original order passed by the learned Labour Court dated 30/6/2005 in dismissing the reference, the petitioner workman has preferred the present Special Civil Application under Article 227 of the Constitution of India.

¶31

3.00. Mr.Mishra, learned advocate appearing on behalf of the petitioner has vehemently submitted that as such the learned Labour Court has materially erred in not condoning the delay caused in preferring the restoration application. It is submitted that as such sufficient cause was shown in not preferring the restoration application within the period of limitation which ought to have been considered by the learned Labour Court and the learned Labour Court ought to have condoned the delay caused in preferring the restoration application.

¶32

3.01. Mr.Mishra, learned advocate appearing on behalf of the petitioner has further submitted that even the original order passed by the labour court dated 30/6/2005 rejecting the reference also deserves to be quashed and set aside. It is submitted that as such the workman was very much interested in proceeding further with the reference. It is submitted that in fact Statement of Claim was also filed by the petitioner, however, thereafter due to the circumstances beyond the

¶33

Page 3 of 6

¶34

C/SCA/4811/2006 JUDGMENT

¶35

control of the petitioner, the petitioner could not remain present before the learned Labour Court. It is submitted that as such the petitioner relied upon his advocate and the learned advocate appearing on behalf of the petitioner did not inform the petitioner with respect to date of hearing/s. Therefore, it is requested to restore the main reference and give an opportunity to the petitioner to submit the case on merits rather than non-suiting him on the technical ground.

¶36

4.00. Mr.Rishin Patel, learned advocate has appeared for Mr.Varun Patel, learned advocate appearing on behalf of the respondent. He has tried to support the impugned order passed by the learned Labour Court. He has submitted that in the facts and circumstances of the case, no error has been committed by the Labour Court in rejecting the reference exparte. It is submitted that even as sufficient cause was not shown, the learned Labour Court is justified in not condoning the delay caused in preferring the restoration application.

¶37

5.00. Heard the learned advocates appearing on behalf of the respective parties.

¶38

5.01. At the outset, it is required to be noted that by exparte order dated 30/6/2005, the Labour Court has rejected the said reference on the ground that since long the petitioner workman is not remaining present and has not produced evidence and therefore, he seems to be not interested in proceeding further with the case. However, it appears that the petitioner relied upon his advocate and according to the petitioner, the learned advocate appearing on behalf of the petitioner did not inform the date of hearings / adjournments.

¶39

Page 4 of 6

¶40

C/SCA/4811/2006 JUDGMENT

¶41

It is required to be noted that the petitioner did filed Statement of Claim and even the petitioner seems to be very much interested in proceeding further with the reference. It is a cardinal principle of law that normally and by and large cases are required to be decided on merits. Under the circumstances, this court is of the opinion that if one additional opportunity is given to the petitioner to submit his case on merits and reference is decided on merits, it will be in the fitness of things.

¶42

5.02. Even by not condoning the delay of 41 days in preferring the restoration application, the learned Labour Court has taken too technical view which also cannot be sustained.

¶43

5.03. Mr.Mishra, learned advocate appearing on behalf of the petitioner has assured the court that if the reference is restored to file, he will give full cooperation to the learned Labour Court in early disposal of the case and produce evidence at the earliest and there shall not be request for unnecessary adjournments on the part of the petitioner.

¶44

6.00. In view of the above and for the reasons stated above, present petition succeeds. The impugned order passed by the learned Labour Court in Misc.Civil Application No.47 of 2004 in Reference (LCB) No.379 of 1997 dated 13/1/2006 as well as the original order passed by the learned Labour Court in Reference (LCB) No.379 of 1997 dated 30/6/2005 dismissing the reference ex-parte, are hereby quashed and set aside and Reference (LCB) No.379 of 1997 is ordered to be restored to the file of learned Labour Court, Bharuch and the Labour Court, Bharuch is directed to decide and dispose of the said reference

¶45

Page 5 of 6

¶46

C/SCA/4811/2006 JUDGMENT

¶47

in accordance with law and on merits, after giving fullest opportunity to the concerned parties. In the facts and circumstances of the case, the learned Labour Court, Bharuch to decide and dispose of the reference on remand afresh in accordance with law and on merits and after permitting the parties to lead evidence, at the earliest and preferably within one year from the date of receipt of the present order. All concerned are directed to cooperate the learned Labour Court in early disposal of the reference. Rule is made absolute accordingly. In the facts and circumstances of the case, there shall be no order as to costs.

¶48

Sd/(M.R.SHAH, J.)

¶49

Rafik

¶50

Page 6 of 6

Devesh Suryaprakash Upadhyay v. Videocon Narmada Glass Ltd. (Old Name Videocon Narmada E.L

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Devesh Suryaprakash Upadhyay v. Videocon Narmada Glass Ltd. (Old Name Videocon Narmada E.L

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

What the court decided

A compact analysis

Issues for consideration

Parties & counsel

Coram

Case details

Similar cases

Pravin Ramjibhai Makwana Vs Mahila Samakhya Soceity

Sushil Kumar Maloo Vs Guajrat Raffia Industries Ltd.

Rajkot Municipal Corporation Vs Jinabhai Vibhabhai Dholkiya

Ashwin Jayantilal Laheru Vs Dy.Executive Engineer Public Health Construction

Dipakkumar Pravinbhai Patel Vs State of Gujarat

Najema (Najuben) Aslam Noorani Vs State of Gujarat