NATWARLAL BHAGWANJI BHATTversusSUPERINTENDENT

     C/SCA/12754/2023                             ORDER DATED: 19/02/2026




            IN THE HIGH COURT OF GUJARAT AT AHMEDABAD

             R/SPECIAL CIVIL APPLICATION NO. 12754 of 2023

===============================================================
                        NATWARLAL BHAGWANJI BHATT
                                  Versus
                          SUPERINTENDENT & ANR.
===============================================================
Appearance:
MR ROHITKUMAR R SHARMA(12025) for the Petitioner(s) No. 1
MS KIRAN R UDASI(12127) for the Petitioner(s) No. 1
MS ROSHNI PATEL AGP for the Respondent(s) No. 1,2
===============================================================

 CORAM:HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE HEMANT M.
       PRACHCHHAK

                              Date : 19/02/2026

                               ORAL ORDER


1.     The present petition is led by the petitioner under Articles
226 and 227 of the Constitution of India read with the provisions
of the Industrial Disputes Act, 1947 seeking following reliefs:

       “A] Be pleased to issue a writ of mandamus or in nature of
       mandamus or certiorari or any other appropriate writ, order or
       direction to quash and set aside impugned order dated
       04.03.2008 in Reference Application (LCR) No. 401 of 1992
       passed by the Labour Court, Presiding O,cer, Rajkot in the
       interest of justice;

       B] Be pleased to allow the reference and reinstate in the
       service and grant retirement bene1ts and be pleased directed
       to pay full back wages with continuity of service to the
       petitioner, in the interest of justice.

       C] This Hon'ble Court be pleased to call for the records and
       proceedings of the Reference Application (LCR) No. 401 of 1992
       at Rajkot.

       E] Be pleased to pass such other and further orders as may
       deem just and proper in the facts and circumstances of the


                                  Page 1 of 6
     C/SCA/12754/2023                          ORDER DATED: 19/02/2026




       case.”


2.     Brief facts giving rise to the present petition are that, the
petitioner was appointed on 12.04.1990 in the Government
Hospital, Morbi as a Ward Servant. That, on 14.11.1990, the
Authority terminated the petitioner on the ground that the work
of the petitioner was not satisfactory. However, after few months
the petitioner was reinstated back in service at the hospital.
That, on 28.02.1991, the petitioner was again terminated from
service by the authority. Consequently, the petitioner preferred a
Reference Application (LCR) No. 401/1992 before the Presiding
O8cer Labour Court, Rajkot for reinstatement in the service and
back wages from the date of termination whereby, the Labour
Court vide judgment and order dated 01.12.2004 partly allowed
the reference directing reinstatement in service without back
wages. That, the said judgment and order passed by the Labour
Court was challenged before this Court by the hospital authority
and the petitioner by way of Special Civil Application No.
13388/2005 and Special Civil Application            No. 7877/2005
respectively. That, this Court vide order dated 04.08.2005
disposed of both the Special Civil Applications and remanded the
matter back to the Labour Court for fresh decision. That, the
Labour Court, Rajkot rejected the reference application led by
the petitioner vide order dated 04.03.2008.


3.     Being aggrieved and dissatis ed with the impugned order
dated 04.03.2008 passed by the Labour Court, the petitioner has
preferred the present petition.


4.     Heard the learned counsel for the respective parties.


                               Page 2 of 6
     C/SCA/12754/2023                            ORDER DATED: 19/02/2026




Perused the material available on record.


5.     Ms. Kiran R Udasi, learned counsel for the petitioner has
submitted that the impugned order passed by the Labour Court
is illegal, unjust, arbitrary, erroneous and contrary to the facts
and material on record and the provisions of the Act and
therefore, is required to be quashed and set aside. She has
submitted that the Labour Court has passed the impugned order
without considering the facts and issues involved in the petition.
She has further submitted that this Court had remanded the
matter back to the Labour Court for fresh decision vide order
dated 04.08.2005 in SCA No. 7877/2005 with SCA No.
13388/2005 wherein this Court had held and observed in para 6
and 7 as under:

       “6. It is not in dispute that the workman was a probationer
       who was on probation initially for a period of 6 months.
       However, there is no further order passed by the authority
       making him permanent on completion of probation period
       and/or his probation period is also not extended and the
       workman continues to be on probation. It is the case of State of
       Gujarat/employer that as his work was not found to be
       satisfactory on completion of probation, it was extended
       (temporary) for a period of 1 month. The workman was relieved
       thereafter and it was the speci1c case on behalf of the State of
       Gujarat in the Written Statement the said aspect has not been
       considered by the Labour Court. As held by the Hon'ble
       Supreme Court in the aforesaid decision in case of (I). State
       of Punjab V/s. Balbir Singh reported in (2004) 11 SCC
       P.743, (II). State of Punjab V/s. Sukhbinder Singh
       reported in 2005 A.I.R. SCW P.3477 & (III). Municipal
       Committee, Sirsa V/s. Manshiram reported in J.T.
       2005(2) S.C. P.117 (supra), even if, during the probation
       period the probationer's work is not satisfactory and if some
       misconduct is the found to have been committed, in that case
       also the Departmental Inquiry is not required to be held. The


                                Page 3 of 6
      C/SCA/12754/2023                             ORDER DATED: 19/02/2026




        aforesaid aspect has not been considered by the Labour Court.
        Under the facts and circumstances, and on the basis of
        concession given by the learned advocate appearing on behalf
        of the respondent workman i.e. Shri Sirish Joshi, the learned
        advocate, appearing on behalf of the workman to remand the
        matter to the Labour Court for its fresh decision, the judgment
        and award passed by the Labour Court is required to be
        quashed and set aside and the matter is to be remanded to the
        Labour Court for its fresh decision in accordance with law and
        on merits, and in the light of the aforesaid aspects, mentioned
        in the written statement and in the light of the judgments of the
        Hon'ble Supreme Court, which are referred to hereinabove.

        7.    For the reasons stated above, the Special Civil Application
        No.13388 of 2005 partly succeeds. The judgment and award
        passed by the Labour Court, Rajkot, dated 1.12.2004 passed in
        Reference (LCR) No.401/92 is hereby quashed and set aside
        and the matter is remanded to the Labour Court, Rajkot for its
        fresh decision in the light of the observations made
        hereinabove and the written statement, with a direction to the
        Labour Court to consider the case of the State of Gujarat with
        regard to the work of the respondent workman being
        unsatisfactory after perusing the judgments of the Hon'ble
        Supreme Court, which are referred to hereinabove. Rule is
        made absolute to the aforesaid extent, however, there will be
        no order as to costs.”


5.1     She has submitted that without considering the above
observations made by this Court, the Labour Court has dismissed
the reference of the petitioner in the second round of litigation.
Over and above the grounds agitated in the memo of petition,
learned counsel Ms. Udasi has urged that the impugned
judgment and order passed by the Labour Court is required to be
quashed and set aside and the present petition is required to be
allowed.



6.      Ms. Roshni Patel, learned AGP for the respondents has


                                 Page 4 of 6
     C/SCA/12754/2023                          ORDER DATED: 19/02/2026




submitted that the workman has worked with the respondent for
about one year only. She has submitted that the impugned order
passed on 01.12.2004 was challenged before this Court wherein
this Court vide order dated 04.08.2005 remanded the matter to
the concerned Court for fresh decision. She has submitted that
the petitioner was unable to prove that he was working with the
respondent on regular basis and considering this fact, the Labour
Court has rightly discussed the provisions of law, more
particularly section 2(oo) and section 25(B) of the Industrial
Disputes Act in para-6(C) of the impugned order. She has
submitted that the Labour Court has also observed that since
there was no breach of any of the provision committed by the
respondent and the petitioner was unable to prove and establish
his case, the Labour Court has rightly rejected the reference of
the petitioner and therefore, there was no any in rmity or
illegality in the impugned order passed by the Labour Court. She
has further contended that there was a gross delay in preferring
the petition before this Court and, therefore, the petition itself is
barred by delay and laches and it is well settled by a series of
judgments that while preferring the petition before this Court,
the petitioner has to explain the delay of each day and since
there is no explanation whatsoever in the petition, the petition
deserves to be dismissed and no interference is to be called for
in the impugned order passed by the Labour Court.


7.     I have heard the learned counsel appearing for the
respective parties and perused the material placed on record. I
have also considered the impugned judgment and order passed
by the Labour Court. It appears from the record that the Labour
Court has considered the deposition of the workman at Exh. 37

                              Page 5 of 6
        C/SCA/12754/2023                                                   ORDER DATED: 19/02/2026




 and after recording the reasons in para-7 onwards, the Labour
 Court has held that the petitioner has failed to establish the fact
 that he was retrenched by the respondent and there was a
 breach of Sections 25 (B) and (F). After considering the
 arguments of the concerned parties and the documentary
 evidence placed on record, the Labour Court has rightly passed
 the impugned order rejecting the reference of the petitioner. It
 appears that the impugned order passed by the Labour Court on
 04.03.2008 in Reference Application (LCR) No. 401 of 1992 was
 challenged before this Court after 15 years i.e. in the year 2023
 and the explanation given for approaching this Court after such a
 long delay is not germane and justi ed. Hence, considering the
 gross delay occurred in approaching this Court and in view of the
 settled legal principles, the petition is devoid of any merits and
 the same deserves to be dismissed.


 8. In the result, the petition is dismissed. Notice is discharged.
 There shall be no order as to costs.



                                                               (HEMANT M. PRACHCHHAK,J)
 ANUSRI

Original copy of this order has been signed by the Hon'ble Judge.
Digitally signed by: ANUSRI VASU(HC02352), ENGLISH STENO GRADE-II\, at High Court of Gujarat on 20/02/2026 17:09:46




                                                 Page 6 of 6