AI Structured Summary
Not yet generated for this judgment
Judgment
Order in Civil Application No. 2 of 2026:
The present Civil Application is filed under Section 5 of the Limitation Act, 1963, for condonation of delay of 4856 days in preferring an application for bringing the legal heirs and representatives of deceased – respondent No.1, Ganpatsinh K. Rana, on record of the main matter.
Heard learned AGP, Ms. Agneya Mankad for the applicant.
Learned AGP for the applicant submitted that respondent No. 1 has passed away during the pendency of the present petition. Applicants were not aware about the death of respondent No. 1. It is contended that the heirs of deceased – respondent No.1 are required to be brought on record. It is submitted that there is no intentional delay on the part of the applicants in preferring the application. It is therefore submitted that, in the interest of justice, delay may be condoned. Except above, no other submissions were canvassed by learned AGP for the applicant.
Having considered the submissions canvassed by learned AGP for the applicant and considering the averments made in the application, sufficient cause is made out for condoning the delay. Resultantly, delay is condoned. The present Civil Application is disposed of accordingly.
Order in Civil Application No. 1 of 2026:
The present Civil Application is filed for bringing the legal heirs of the deceased – respondent No.1, Ganpatsinh K. Rana, on record. Copy of death certificate is produced on record.
Learned AGP, Ms. Agneya Mankad for the applicant, submitted that the heirs of the deceased are required to be brought on record. The captioned petition would be rendered futile if the heirs of the deceased – respondent No.1 are not brought on record.
In view of the averments made in the application and having considered the submissions made by the learned AGP for the applicant, the heirs of the deceased – respondent No. 1 are found to be necessary parties. Hence, the present application deserves to be allowed, and the same is hereby allowed. Necessary amendment to be carried out forthwith.
Order in Special Civil Application No. 12279 of 2012:
The present petition is filed under Articles 226 and 227 of the Constitution of India, 1950 by the petitioner – State praying for following reliefs:
“(A)YOUR LORDSHIPS may be please to hear, admit and allow this petition;
(B)YOUR LORDSHIPS may be pleased to issue wirt, order or direction in the nature of certiorari and/or any other appropriate writ, order or direction in the nature of certiorari to quash and set aside judgement and award dtd.10.1.2012 passed by the court of learned Presiding Officer, Labour Court No.1, Vadodara in Reference (LCV) No. 542/1988.
(C)Pending admission hearing and final disposal of this petition, YOUR LORDSHIPS may be pleased to stay execution, implementation and operation of order dtd. 10.1.2012 passed by learned Presiding Officer, Labour Court No.1, Vadodara in Reference (LCV) No. 542/1988.
(D)YOUR LORDSHIPS may be pleased to pass such other and further reliefs as deemed, fit and proper in the interest of justice.”
Heard learned AGP Ms. Agneya Mankad for the petitioner. Though served, none appeared for the respondents.
Learned AGP for the petitioner – State submitted that as per the case of respondent, he was working with the petitioner – State as a watchman since 01.01.1982. The respondent – workman was orally terminated on 20.06.1987 and, therefore, respondent approached the learned Labour Court. The learned Labour Court, vide judgment and award dated 10.01.2012, granted a compensation of Rs.65,000/- to the workman. The learned Labour has failed to appreciate the fact that the respondent – workman was involved in a criminal case whereby, he was convicted for a period of 5 years. It is submitted that though, vide letters dated 13.12.1986, 15.12.1986 and 05.12.1987, the respondent was intimated to resume his duties, the respondent remained absent. It is submitted that as the respondent – workman was convicted under a criminal case, he could not join duties. It is further submitted that the respondent was a temporary workman and, therefore, no notice or notice pay was issued to the respondent. It is, therefore, submitted that the learned Labour Court has committed an error in partly allowing the Reference of the respondent – workman by misinterpreting the provisions of Section 25B of the Industrial Disputes Act, 1947. Except above, no other submissions were made by learned AGP for the petitioner.
I have considered submissions made by learned AGP for the petitioner and the averments made in the petition as well as upon perusal of the award impugned, it appears that learned Labour Court has held that the workman had reached the age of superannuation and, therefore, reinstatement of workman is not possible. Therefore, lump-sum compensation in lieu of reinstatement is granted. The amount involved in the present petition is only Rs.65,000/-, therefore, considering the smallness of the amount, this Court is of the view that without going into the merits of the matter, the present petition is required to be dismissed. Accordingly, the present petition stands dismissed. Rule stands discharged.
It is made clear that this judgment is delivered in light of the smallness of amount, and therefore, it shall not be considered as precedent.
The amount of compensation awarded by the learned Labour Court shall be deposited by the petitioner to the respondent – workman within a period of six weeks from the date of this judgment.