LEGAL HEIRS OF DECEASED ABBAS ISMAILBHAI MANEK SHARIFABEN ABBASBHAI MANEK W/O DECDversusBHARATBHAI HARAKHCHAND SHAH

     C/SCA/10013/2025                              JUDGMENT DATED: 03/03/2026




             IN THE HIGH COURT OF GUJARAT AT AHMEDABAD

               R/SPECIAL CIVIL APPLICATION NO. 10013 of 2025


FOR APPROVAL AND SIGNATURE:


HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE HEMANT M. PRACHCHHAK
================================================================

             Approved for Reporting               Yes          No

================================================================
LEGAL HEIRS OF DECEASED ABBAS ISMAILBHAI MANEK SHARIFABEN
                 ABBASBHAI MANEK W/O DECD
                           Versus
              BHARATBHAI HARAKHCHAND SHAH
================================================================
Appearance:
MR YOGEN N PANDYA(5766) for the Petitioner(s) No. 1
JEET Y RAJYAGURU(8039) for the Respondent(s) No. 1
================================================================

 CORAM:HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE HEMANT M.
       PRACHCHHAK

                              Date : 03/03/2026

                                JUDGMENT


1.       RULE returnable forthwith. Learned counsel Mr. Jeet Rajyaguru,
waives service of notice of Rule for and on behalf of the respondent.


2.       Present petition is "led by the petitioner 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 order dated 07.05.2025 passed by the learned
Commissioner for Workmen Compensation, Jamnagar in W.C. Misc.
Application (Delay) No. 22 of 2024, whereby, the learned Judge has
rejected the application "led by the petitioner for condonation of
delay in preferring application for review of an ex parte order dated


                                  Page 1 of 3
     C/SCA/10013/2025                              JUDGMENT DATED: 03/03/2026




08.07.2016 passed by the Workmen Commissioner & Labour Judge,
Jamnagar in Workmen Compensation (Fatal) Case No. 12 of 2013.


3.       Brief facts giving rise to the present petition are that, the
husband of the petitioner was doing labour work with the respondent
and was drawing salary of Rs. 500/- per day. During the service with
the respondent, on 10.06.2016, the husband of the petitioner met
with an accident and died and therefore, the petitioner "led Workmen
Compensation (Fatal) Case No.12 of 2013 before the Workmen
Commissioner & Labour Judge, Jamnagar. That, the Labour Court
proceeded with the Workman Compensation (Fatal) Case No.12 of
2013 but, due to absence of the learned advocate of the petitioner,
the Laour Court passed an ex parte order on 08.07.2016. That, the
petitioner as and when came to know about the order passed in the
aforesaid case, "led application for restoration of the W.C. (Fatal)
Case No.12 of 2013, wherein the delay has been occurred due to
some unavoidable circumstances. That, the Labour Court without
considering the submissions and evidence of the petitioner rejected
the application by not condoning the delay by way of impugned order
dated 07.05.2025.


4.       Being aggrieved and dissatis"ed with the impugned order dated
07.05.2022 passed by the learned Commissioner in W.C. Misc.
Application (Delay) No. 22 of 2024, the petitioner has preferred this
petition.


5.       Since the impugned order under challenge is passed by the
Commissioner            for   Workmen   Compensation   under      Workmen’s
Compensation Act, 1923, against which appeal is to be "led under
Section 30 of the Act, instead, the petitioner has preferred this


                                    Page 2 of 3
        C/SCA/10013/2025                                                      JUDGMENT DATED: 03/03/2026




petition invoking jurisdiction under Articles 226 & 227 of the
Constitution of India, which is not maintainable in view of the
alternative e@cacious remedy provided under the statute and thus,
the petition is misconceived and the same is required to be dismissed.


6.          In view of above, the petition is hereby dismissed. Rule is
discharged. It is observed that this Court has not gone into the merits
of the matter having lack of jurisdiction.


7.          It is open for the petitioner to take appropriate recourse
provided under the statute by way of "ling appropriate application.



                                                                   (HEMANT M. PRACHCHHAK,J)

Dolly




Original copy of this order has been signed by the Hon'ble Judge.
Digitally signed by: DOLLYBEN CHETANBHAI VADUKAR(HC01392), PRIVATE SECRETARY, at High Court of Gujarat on 09/03/2026 17:51:43

                                                   Page 3 of 3