M/S SOFT AGE INFORMATION TECHNOLOGY LIMITED THROUGH AUTHORISED REPRESENTATIVE MUNINDRA KUMAR YADAVversusMODAN RAFIK GULAMBHAI

      C/SCA/1172/2026                            ORDER DATED: 10/02/2026




            IN THE HIGH COURT OF GUJARAT AT AHMEDABAD

              R/SPECIAL CIVIL APPLICATION NO. 1172 of 2026

                                 With
              R/SPECIAL CIVIL APPLICATION NO. 1304 of 2026
                                 With
              R/SPECIAL CIVIL APPLICATION NO. 1626 of 2026
                                 With
              R/SPECIAL CIVIL APPLICATION NO. 1630 of 2026
================================================================
     M/S SOFT AGE INFORMATION TECHNOLOGY LIMITED THROUGH
       AUTHORISED REPRESENTATIVE MUNINDRA KUMAR YADAV
                             Versus
                  MODAN RAFIK GULAMBHAI & ANR.
================================================================
Appearance:
MR. DARSHAN C PANCHAL(14588) for the Petitioner(s) No. 1
================================================================

 CORAM:HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE HEMANT M.
       PRACHCHHAK

                            Date : 10/02/2026

                         COMMON ORAL ORDER


1.     Since common issue is involved in the captioned writ petitions,
the same are heard analogously and are being decided by this
common Order.


2.     Present petitions are   led by the petitioner - Company 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 orders of the even date i.e. dated 20.09.2025
passed by the learned Judge (S.D.), Labour Court, Ahmedabad
(hereinafter be referred to as “the Labour Court”) in respective Misc.
Applications for condonation of delay led by the petitioner-Company,
whereby, the learned Judge has rejected the applications for
condonation of delay.



                                Page 1 of 7
     C/SCA/1172/2026                                 ORDER DATED: 10/02/2026




3.    Brief facts giving rise to the present petitions are that, the
respective     respondents   (ex-workmen),     who     were engaged            as
documentation executive for sorting and packing of documents
pursuant to work allotted by respondent No.2, raised an industrial
dispute alleging illegal termination and      led Reference (L.C.A.) Nos.
389 of 2013, 390 of 2013, 392 of 2013 & 391 of 2013 respectively,
before the Labour Court, Ahmedabad, against the petitioner
Company. That, the petitioner-Company shifted its Ahmedabad o;ce
from Sarkhej to Motera, as a result, any correspondence issued at the
old address was not received by the petitioner-Company. That, the
Notices in the reference proceedings were received by Mr. Kaushik
Anand Satpathy, an o;cial of the petitioner-Company, who thereafter,
left the services of the petitioner without handing over charge or
informing the management or Ahmedabad branch about the
pendency of the said reference. That, due to non-appearance caused
by the departure of the concerned o;cial and lack of internal
communication, aforesaid References proceeded ex-parte against the
petitioner-Company and respondent No.2 by the Labour Court,
Ahmedabad. That, upon becoming aware of the ex-parte proceedings,
the petitioner-Company engaged an Advocate and               led Restoration
Applications before the Labour Court, Ahmedabad, whereby, the
Labour Court allowed Restoration Applications and restored the
References to its original   le, and imposed costs of 10,000/-, which
were duly paid by the petitioner to the respondents-workmen. That,
after restoration, the petitioner-Company actively participated in the
proceedings, engaged an Advocate, and          led its written statement,
duly signed and veri ed on behalf of the petitioner-Company. That,
the reference proceedings continued before the Labour Court and the
petitioner remained under a bona        de belief that the matters were
being duly represented and monitored by the Advocate engaged on


                                Page 2 of 7
    C/SCA/1172/2026                             ORDER DATED: 10/02/2026




its behalf. That, due to the COVID-19 pandemic, the petitioner-
Company underwent sta? rotation, restructuring, and changes in
management personnel and newly appointed o;cials were not
informed about the pendency of References. That, during this period,
the Advocate representing the petitioner failed to inform the
petitioner-Company about hearing dates, progress of proceedings, or
any adverse orders and no e?ective notice of hearings was received
by the petitioner at its correct address. That, the Labour Court passed
an ex-parte Award in the aforesaid References allegedly due to non-
appearance of the petitioner-Company. That, as per the respondents'
claim, the ex-parte Award was published/sent to the parties; however,
the said Award was never served upon the petitioner-Company at its
correct or current address, nor any intimation was received from the
Advocate and therefore, the petitioner-Company remained completely
unaware of passing of the ex-parte Award dated 04/03/2022. That, the
respondents-workmen led respective Recovery Applications seeking
recovery pursuant to the ex-parte Award dated 04/03/2022. That, the
Notice of Recovery Applications was served for the rst time upon the
petitioner-Company at its Head O;ce at Gurgaon, Haryana and this
was the    rst occasion on which the newly appointed management
sta? of the petitioner came to know that some order had been passed
in the reference proceedings. That, upon receipt of the recovery
notice, the newly appointed management o;cials instructed the
Ahmedabad branch o;cials to verify the matter before the Labour
Court. That, the petitioner's Ahmedabad o;cials visited the Labour
Court in connection with the Recovery Applications and were informed
that an ex-parte Award dated 04/03/2022 had been passed in
References. That, the petitioner engaged a new Advocate at
Ahmedabad and applied for certi ed copies of the entire proceedings
as well as the ex-parte Award. That, the petitioner obtained the


                               Page 3 of 7
     C/SCA/1172/2026                            ORDER DATED: 10/02/2026




certi ed copy of the ex-parte Award dated 04/03/2022 and the
complete case record and      led Restoration Applications along with
Condonation of Delay Applications seeking restoration of References,
purely as a precaution to avoid technical objections and within the
statutory framework of Rule 26(A) of the Gujarat Industrial Disputes
Rules, 1966 read with Section 5 of the Limitation Act. That, the
respondents-workmen opposed the condonation application by
alleging presumed knowledge based on recovery proceedings,
without producing any documentary evidence or speci c dates of
such alleged knowledge. The Labour Court passed the impugned
orders rejecting Condonation of Delay Applications.


4.    Being aggrieved and dissatis ed with (i) the ex-parte Award
dated 04/03/2022 and (ii) the impugned orders dated 20/09/2025, the
petitioner has preferred these petitions.


5.    Heard learned counsel Mr. Darshan C. Panchal, appearing for
the petitioner-Company.


6.    Learned counsel Mr. Panchal has submitted that the impugned
orders passed by the Labour Court are illegal, unjust, arbitrary,
erroneous and contrary to the facts and material on record and the
provisions of the Act and is based on assumption and presumption
and therefore, are required to be quashed and set aside. He has
submitted that the copy of the ex-parte award dated 04.03.2022 was
never served upon the petitioner and it was not communicated to the
petitioner and therefore, the award not o;cially served at the present
address of the petitioner and when they came to know about the
same, they had immediately approached the Labour Court by way of
 ling restoration applications alongwith applications for condonation


                                Page 4 of 7
     C/SCA/1172/2026                             ORDER DATED: 10/02/2026




of delay and under the circumstances narrated in the applications for
condonation of delay, some delay has been occurred in preferring the
restoration applications and thus, the applications were wrongly
rejected by the Labour Court. He has further submitted that the
address which was supplied in the Labour Court and the address at
which the copy of the award was served, both are di?erent places and
therefore, under such circumstances, the petitioner was unable to get
the intimation about the award passed by the Labour Court. He has
further submitted that the copy of the award dated 04.03.2022
passed in the References were never served upon the petitioner and
when the petitioner came to know about the same, they had
immediately applied for certi ed copy on 26.06.2024 , which was
received on 15.07.2024, however, the Labour Court has not
considered these facts in its true and proper spirit while rejecting the
applications and thus, the impugned orders passed by the Labour
Court are completely erroneous, illegal and unjust. Over and above
the grounds agitated in the memo of petitions, learned counsel Mr.
Panchal has urged that the impugned orders be quashed and set
aside and the present petitions be allowed.


7.    I have heard the learned counsel appearing for the petitioner-
Company and perused the material placed on record. On perusal of
the impugned orders dated 20.09.2025 passed by the Labour Court,
more particularly the observations made in para-5, the Labour Court
has observed that in fact, the petitioner has not stated anything in the
application with regard to the fact that from which source they had
received information and on which date they had visited the Labour
Court, since, when the petitioner had received the notice in the
recovery application, the number of the reference and date of the
award were already mentioned in the recovery application itself,


                                Page 5 of 7
     C/SCA/1172/2026                               ORDER DATED: 10/02/2026




however, the petitioner has stated contrary facts in the Misc.
Applications and therefore, the Labour Court after observing all these
facts in detail in para-5 has rejected the applications. On perusal of
the impugned orders, it also appears that the applications were
rejected on the ground of false facts narrated in the applications and
there was no satisfactory reasons stated in the applications to explain
the delay. The award was passed by the Labour Court on 04.03.2022
and the same was also published, however, the petitioner had
approached the Labour Court by way of          ling Misc. Applications for
restoration after almost 27 months, contending that they were not
served with the copy of the award, which is contrary to the facts on
record. Now it is well settled in the recent judgment of the Hon’ble
Apex Court rendered in case of Shivamma (Dead) by LRS vs.
Karnataka Housing Board and Ors., reported in 2025 (0)
JX(SC) 1187, which mandates that for condoning delay under Section
5 of the Limitation Act, 1963, a day-by-day explanation must be
provided for the entire period from when the limitation period began
until the actual date of ling, not just the period of delay itself, and
thus, no proper explanation was given by the petitioner before the
Labour Court and therefore, after observing all these facts, the Labour
Court has rightly rejected the applications. Even the Labour Court has
also observed that the petitioner has not stated true and correct facts
in the application and contradictory facts were stated in the
applications and therefore, after considering all these aspects, the
Labour Court has passed the impugned orders, which is in consonance
with the settled legal principles and there is no any in rmity or any
irregularity found in the impugned orders passed by the Labour Court.
Considering all these aspects, this Court is not inclined to entertain
the present petitions and the same are required to be dismissed with
cost of Rs.5,000/-, since the petitioner has stated incorrect facts in the


                                 Page 6 of 7
         C/SCA/1172/2026                                                         ORDER DATED: 10/02/2026




 applications as observed by the Labour Court.


 8.        In the result, the present petitions being devoid of any merits,
 deserve to be dismissed and accordingly, the present petitions are
 hereby dismissed.


 8.1       The amount of cost of Rs. 5,000/- towards EACH petition is to be
 deposited by the petitioner-Company before the Registry of this
 Court, within a period of four weeks from the date of receipt of writ of
 this Order.


           Registry to place a copy of this order in each connected matter.



                                                                    (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 16/02/2026 15:54:33


                                                     Page 7 of 7