MAHESHBHAI MOHANBHAI BHOYEversusDEPUTY CONSERVATOR OF FOREST

     C/SCA/15626/2025                              ORDER DATED: 12/01/2026




            IN THE HIGH COURT OF GUJARAT AT AHMEDABAD

             R/SPECIAL CIVIL APPLICATION NO. 15626 of 2025

==============================================================
                    MAHESHBHAI MOHANBHAI BHOYE
                               Versus
                DEPUTY CONSERVATOR OF FOREST & ANR.
==============================================================
Appearance:
MR TEJAS D SHUKLA(5312) 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 : 12/01/2026

                              ORAL ORDER


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

       “(A) Your Lordship may be pleased to issue a Writ of Certiorari
       and/or a Mandamus and/or any other order quashing and
       setting aside the Award dated 15-2-2025 passed by the Ld.
       Labour Court, Valsad in Reference (L.C.V) No. 15/2016.

       (B) Your Lordship may also be pleased to direct the respondents
       to reinstate the petitioner with continuity, with all consequential
       bene-ts and full back wages.

       (C) Any other relief may be granted.”


2.     Brief facts giving rise to the present petition are that, the
petitioner-workman was working as a Labourer and his duty was
to remove the lumps of wood and remove the cubic meter, w.e.f.
03-04-1994 with the Respondent No. 2 in the Forest Department


                                 Page 1 of 9
     C/SCA/15626/2025                         ORDER DATED: 12/01/2026




of the Government and his last drawn salary was Rs. 2418/- per
month. That, the respondent had not issued any show cause
notice or chargesheet against the petitioner-workman. That, on
31-3-2005, the RFO Shri Kamakhaliya had orally terminated the
services of the petitioner-workman. Therefore, the petitioner-
workman          led a complaint before the Assistant Labour
Commissioner for conciliation, however, the dispute was not
resolved and the conciliation proceedings failed. Thereafter, the
dispute was referred to Labour Court, Valsad, which was
registered as Reference (LCV) No. 15 of 2016 whereby, the
Labour Court vide award dated 15-02-2025 rejected the
reference on the ground of delay.


3.     Being aggrieved and dissatis ed with the impugned award
dated 15.02.2025, the petitioner-workman has preferred the
present petition.


4.     Heard Mr. Tejas D Shukla, learned counsel for the petitioner
and Ms. Roshni Patel, learned AGP for the respondents. Perused
the material on record.


5.     Mr. Shukla, learned counsel for the petitioner                   has
submitted that the impugned judgment and award 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. He has
submitted that the Labour Court has committed an error in law in
rejecting the reference on the ground of delay, having held that
the termination of the petitioner violated section 25F of the
Industrial Disputes Act, 1947. He has submitted that the

                              Page 2 of 9
      C/SCA/15626/2025                         ORDER DATED: 12/01/2026




provision of the ID Act does not prescribe any speci c period of
limitation for making a reference under Section 10 of the ID Act
and, thus, mere delay or lapse of time, in absence of any express
statutory bar, cannot defeat the statutory right of the workman.
He has submitted that the petitioner-workman was an employee
and had worked continuously and he was illegally terminated
from the services.


5.1     Mr. Shukla, learned counsel for the petitioner has
submitted that the petition deserves to be allowed and the
impugned award passed by the Labour Court deserves to be
quashed and set aside.


6.      As against that, learned AGP Ms. Roshni Patel, appearing
for the respondent, has opposed the present petition and
submitted that there is no any in rmity or any illegality in the
impugned judgment and award passed by the Labour Court and
therefore, no interference is required to be called for in the
present petition. She has submitted that the impugned judgment
and award passed by the Labour Court is in consonance with the
settled principles of law and is passed after following due
procedure and therefore, the same is required to be con rmed
and the present petition is required to be dismissed and no
interference is required to be called for while exercising
jurisdiction under Article 227 of the Constitution of India.


7.      Having considered the submissions made by learned
counsel appearing for the respective parties and perused the
impugned award passed by the Labour Court, it appears that the
workman was illegally terminated from the services and,

                              Page 3 of 9
    C/SCA/15626/2025                               ORDER DATED: 12/01/2026




therefore, he has raised the dispute before the Assistant Labour
Commissioner and, then the same was referred to the Labour
Court for adjudication. It emerges from the record that the
Labour Court rejected the reference on the ground that the
workman has not approached in time. On perusal of the
impugned award, it appears that the Labour Court has not
committed any error while passing the impugned award. That
after the order of removal was passed in 2005, the reasons best
known to the petitioner, the reference was made in the year
2016 i.e. after almost 11 years and even during the pendency of
the reference, the petitioner has not taken any proper care to
produce relevant material on record before the Labour Court.
The Labour Court has recorded the nding and reasoning in para
22 and 24 for explanation that why the Labour Court was taking
such harsh decision. From 2016 to 2025, neither the petitioner
has produced any relevant record before the Labour Court nor
taken care to produce documentary evidence. The reason shown
by the petitioner before the Labour Court is contrary to the facts
of the record and in fact there was no any adjournment or report
 led by the petitioner before the Labour Court during that period.
The Labour Court has observed that from 2005, almost 11 years
have passed and the workman remained silent and has not taken
any care. Under such circumstances, it appears that after relying
upon the decisions of this Court in the case of (1) Bhavnagar
Municipal Corporation Vs. Arvindbhai Ravjibhai Naiya
reported       in 2024    LawSuit(Guj)          1142, (2) Dhulabhai
Somabhai Damor Vs. Deputy Executive Engineer reported
in 2024 LawSuit(Guj) 2368 and (3) Kamdar Hit Rakshak
Union through President Vs. Deputy Director of Tra6c
Manager        reported   in   2024          LawSuit(Guj)      2842          and

                               Page 4 of 9
     C/SCA/15626/2025                             ORDER DATED: 12/01/2026




considering the relevant facts of the case, the Labour Court has
rightly rejected the application. In fact, the Hon'ble Supreme
Court in case of Prabhakar Vs. Joint Director Sericulture
Department and another reported in (2015) 15 SCC 1, has
discussed with regard to the existence of the industrial dispute
for this long period and this long period without any explanation
cannot be considered by the Court. In the present case,
Mr.Shukla, learned counsel has submitted that the petitioner-
workman was approaching the authorities to explain the
inordinate delay of almost eleven years. In the said decision, the
Hon'ble Supreme Court has considered the fact that even
otherside has taken defence with regard to the delay in
approaching the Labour Court, the Labour Court ought to have
considered the aspect of delay though the delay was not
properly explained under the provisions the Limitation Act is not
applicable.


8.     The relevant observations of the decision of the Hon'ble
Supreme Court in the case of Prabhakar (supra) reads as
under:-

       "An industrial dispute has to be referred by the appropriate
       Government for adjudication and the workman cannot approach
       the Labour Court or Industrial Tribunal directly, except in those
       cases which are covered by Section 2A of the Act. Reference is
       made under Section 10 of the Act in those cases where the
       appropriate Government forms an opinion that any industrial
       dispute exists or is apprehended. The words 'industrial dispute
       exists are of paramount importance unless there is an
       existence of an industrial dispute (or the dispute is
       apprehended or it is apprehended such a dispute may arise in
       near future), no reference is to be made Thus, existence or
       apprehension of an industrial dispute is a sine qua non for
       making the reference. No doubt, at the time of taking a decision


                                Page 5 of 9
C/SCA/15626/2025                              ORDER DATED: 12/01/2026




  whether a reference is to be made or not. the appropriate
  Government is not to go into the merits of the dispute. Making
  of reference is only an administrative function. At the same
  time, on the basis of material on record, satisfaction of the
  existence of the industrial dispute or the apprehension of an
  industrial dispute is necessary. Such existence/apprehension of
  industrial dispute, thus, becomes a condition precedent, though
  it will be only subjective satisfaction based on material on
  record Since, we are not concerned with the satisfaction dealing
  with cases where there is apprehended industrial dispute,
  discussion that follows would con-ne to existence of an
  industrial dispute. Dispute or di:erence arises when one party
  make a demand and other party rejects the same. It is held by
  this Court in number of cases that before raising the industrial
  dispute making of demand is a necessary pre-condition. In such
  a scenario, if the services of a workman are terminated and he
  does not make the demand and/or raise the issue alleging
  wrongful termination immediately thereafter or within
  reasonable time and raises the same after considerable lapse of
  period, whether it can be said that industrial dispute still exist.
  Since there is no period of limitation, it gives right to the
  workman to raise the dispute even belatedly. However, if the
  dispute is raised after a long period, it has to be seen as to
  whether such a dispute still exists- Thus, notwithstanding the
  fact that law of limitation does not apply, it is to be shown by
  the workman that there is a dispute in praesenti. For this
  purpose, he has to demonstrate that even if considerable
  period has lapsed and there are laches and delays, such delay
  has not resulted into making the industrial dispute seized to
  exist. Therefore, if the workman is able to give satisfactory
  explanation for these laches and delays and demonstrate that
  the circumstances discloses that issue is still alive, delay would
  not come in his way because of the reason that law of limitation
  has no application On the other hand, if because of such delay
  dispute no longer remains alive and is to be treated as "dead",
  then it would be non-existent dispute which cannot be referred
  Take, for example, a case where the workman issues notice
  after his termination, questioning the termination and
  demanding reinstatement. He is able to show that there were
  discussions from time to time and the parties were trying to
  sort out the matter amicably. Or he is able to show that there
  were assurances by the Management to the e:ect that he
  would be taken back in service and because of these reasons,


                            Page 6 of 9
C/SCA/15626/2025                               ORDER DATED: 12/01/2026




  he did not immediately raise the dispute by approaching the
  labour authorities seeking reference or did not invoke the
  remedy under Section 2A of the Act. In such a scenario, it can
  be treated that the dispute was live and existing as the
  workman never abandoned his right. However, in this very
  example, even if the notice of demand was sent but it did not
  evoke any positive response or there was speci-c rejection by
  the Management of his demand contained in the notice and
  thereafter he sleeps over the matter for number of years. it can
  be treated that he accepted the factum of his termination and
  rejection thereof by the Management and acquiesced into the
  said rejection Take another example. A workman approaches
  the Civil Court by -ling a suit against his termination which was
  pending for number of years and was ultimately dismissed on
  the ground that Civil Court did not have jurisdiction to enforce
  the contract of personal service and does not grant any
  reinstatement. At that stage, when the suit is dismissed or he
  withdraws that suit and then involves the machinery under the
  Act, it can lead to the conclusion that dispute is still alive as the
  workman had not accepted the termination but was agitating
  the same; albeit in a wrong forum, In contrast, in those cases
  where there was no agitation by the workman against his
  termination and the dispute is raised belatedly and the delay or
  laches remain unexplained, it would be presumed that he had
  waived his right or acquiesced into the act of termination and,
  therefore, at the time when the dispute is raised it had become
  stale and was not an existing dispute in such circumstances,
  the appropriate Government can refuse to make reference. In
  the alternative, the Labour Court/Industrial Court can also hold
  that there is no "industrial dispute" within the meaning of
  Section 2(k) of the Act and, therefore, no relief can be granted.

  We may hasten to clarify that in those cases where the Court
  -nds that dispute still existed, though raised belatedly, it is
  always permissible for the Court to take the aspect of delay into
  consideration and mould the relief. In such cases, it is still open
  for the Court to either grant reinstatement without back wages
  or lesser back wages or grant compensation instead of
  reinstatement. We are of the opinion that the law on this issue
  has to be applied in the aforesaid perspective in such matters.

  To summarise, although there is no limitation prescribed under
  the Act for making a reference under Section 10(1) of the Act,


                             Page 7 of 9
     C/SCA/15626/2025                             ORDER DATED: 12/01/2026




       yet it is for the appropriate Government to consider whether it
       is expedient or not to make the reference. The words at any
       time' used in Section 10(1) do not admit of any limitation in
       making an order of reference and laws of limitation are not
       applicable to proceedings under the Act. However, the policy of
       industrial adjudication is that very stale claims should not be
       generally encouraged or allowed inasmuch as unless there is
       satisfactory explanation for delay as, apart from the obvious
       risk to industrial peace from the entertainment of claims after
       long lapse of time, it is necessary also to take into account the
       unsettling e:ect which it is likely to have on the employers’
       -nancial arrangement and to avoid dislocation of an industry.

       On the application of the aforesaid principle to the facts of the
       present case, we are of the view that High Court correctly
       decided the issue holding that the reference at such a belated
       stage i.e. after fourteen years of termination without any
       justi-able explanation for delay, the appropriate Government
       had not jurisdiction or power to make reference of a non-
       existing dispute.”


9.     On perusal of the material on record, it appears that the
respondents have not taken contention with regard to the delay
before the Labour Court, when it came to the knowledge of the
Labour Court, the Labour Court has rightly observed the part of
delay then it cannot be said that it is considered without there
being any material and hence, the petition is required to be
dismissed on account of gross delay in preferring the reference
before the Labour Court. Once the Labour Court has passed the
order on the ground of delay, after considering the decision of
the Hon'ble Supreme Court, now the petitioner cannot take
contention that the respondents have not objected the reference
on the ground of delay as they have not taken any contention in
their written statement. It is the contention on the part of the
workman that the Labour Court has committed an error while
passing the impugned award on the ground of delay and the


                                Page 8 of 9
         C/SCA/15626/2025                                                   ORDER DATED: 12/01/2026




  learned Assistant Government Pleader has raised the aspect of
  delay before this Court. It cannot be said that the respondents
  have no right to raise the contention on the aspect of delay
  before this Court as they have not taken any ground of delay in
  their written statement. It is legal right of the State Authority to
  raise such contention, therefore, it cannot be said that the
  Labour Court has committed an error in passing the impugned
  award.


  10.      Considering the decision of the Hon'ble Supreme Court in
  the case of Prabhakar (supra) and the decisions of this Court in
  the aforesaid cases, no case is made out to entertain the present
  petition and the same being meritless deserves to be dismissed.


  11.      In view of the aforesaid facts and circumstances of the case
  and the decisions, the petition stands dismissed. The impugned
  award passed by the Labour Court is hereby con rmed. 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 13/01/2026 16:22:02




                                                  Page 9 of 9