DHULABHAI SOMABHAI DAMOR Vs. DEPUTY EXECUTIVE ENGINEER

JUDGEMENT

(1.) The present Appeal is directed against the Order, dtd. 9/7/2024 passed in the captioned Writ Petition being Special Civil Application No.4530 of 2024 filed by the present Appellant-Original Petitioner, whereby the learned Single Judge has rejected the Writ Petition.

(2.) At the outset, learned Advocate Mr. Swapneshwar Goutam appearing for the Appellant has submitted that the learned Single Judge has fell in error in rejecting the Writ Petition assailing the Award, dtd. 4/1/2023 passed by the Labour Court, Godhra in Reference (T) No.101 of 2008 on the ground of delay. He submitted that the Labour Court as well as the learned Single Judge have failed to appreciate the facts in its true perspective and have erred in rejecting the Reference proceedings as well as the Writ Petition by placing reliance on the Judgment of the Supreme Court in the case of Prabhakar v. Joint Director Sericulture Department & anr., 2015 (4) LLN 16 (SC) : 2015 (15) SCC 1. It is submitted that initially, the Appellant was working as a Watchman and was appointed in the year 1984 and was terminated in the year 1985, and the dispute culminated into Reference (LCV) No.998 of 1986, which was dismissed for default in the year 1987 and thereafter, Hon'ble the Chief Minister has directed the Irrigation Department to consider the case of the Appellant for illegal termination in the year 2002 and ultimately, he raised a fresh dispute, which culminated into Reference (T) No.101 of 2008. It is submitted that the Advocate, who was appearing in the proceedings had passed away. Thus, it is submitted that it cannot be said that the dispute was not kept alive by the Appellant and hence, the Reference proceedings could not have been rejected on the ground of delay.

(3.) Per contra, Ms. Shruti Dhruve, learned AGP has submitted that the impugned Order may not be interfered with as the Appellant has remained negligent in pursuing his grievance. It is submitted that initially, Reference was dismissed for default in the year 1987 and the Appellant did not do anything for all these years and ultimately, raised another dispute, which culminated into Reference proceedings being Reference (T) No.101 of 2008, which has been precisely rejected by the Labour Court by placing reliance on the Judgment in the case of Prabhakar (supra). The learned AGP has also placed reliance on the recent Judgment of the Supreme Court, dtd. 21/11/2024 in the case of Rajneesh Kumar and anr. v. Ved Prakash, 2024 INSC 891 and it was submitted that it was necessary for the Appellant to pursue his Reference proceedings and he cannot blame the advocate who was appearing on his behalf. It is submitted that the learned Single Judge has also precisely confirmed the award and hence, it is urged that the present Appeal may not be entertained.