DWARKA NAGARPALIKA Vs. JITENDRA RANCHHODDAS MAJETHIA

JUDGEMENT

(1.) Heard Mr. Dilip B. Rana, learned advocate for the appellant and Mr. T.R. Mishra, learned advocate for respondent no.1. Though served, no one appears for the respondent no.2.

(2.) The present appeal is directed against the order dated 2.5.2017 passed by the learned Single Judge of this Court in Special Civil Application no.9053 of 2017. The learned Single Judge, while considering the Writ Petition filed by the appellant herein, was pleased to dismiss the Writ Petition on the ground of delay. It would be appropriate at this stage to note that what was challenged by the petitioner by way of a writ petition under Article 226/227 of the Constitution of India was the judgment and award rendered by the Labour Court, Jamnagar in Reference (LCD) no.12 of 2000 dated 28.6.2011 and the recovery orders passed thereafter.

(3.) The record of this appeal indicates that the respondent-workman was working as a Valveman since 1996 on daily wages. On respondent- workman being discontinued from his job, he filed a Reference through the Union which came to be registered as Reference (LCD) no.12 of 2000. A notice came to be issued to the appellant-Nagarpalika, however, no appearance was filed. The record indicates that the said Reference was decided after 11 years by the Labour Court i.e. the award was declared on 28.6.2011. Thereafter, the appellant filed an application before the Labour Court on 1.8.2012 to set aside the ex-parte award. The said application came to be rejected on 31.10.2012. The workman, as a last resort, approached the Labour Court for recovery of the amount due from the appellant and filed Recovery Application no.153 of 2013 on 16.8.2013 under the provisions of Section 33(C)(2) of the Industrial Disputes Act and claimed Rs.7,33,427/- as arrears. The said application was partly allowed by order dated 19.1.2017. The said order alerted the appellant for the first time after 5 years and therefore, they approached this Court by way of the present petition as observed hereinabove. The learned Single Judge was pleased to reject the same and hence, this appeal.