IN THE HIGH COURT OF GUJARAT AT AHMEDABAD R/SPECIAL CIVIL APPLICATION NO. 3009 of 2026 FOR APPROVAL AND SIGNATURE: HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE HEMANT M. PRACHCHHAK ============================================================= Approved for Reporting Yes No ============================================================= GOSAI PRAVINGIRI DHARMGIRI Versus THE DIRECTOR, ASHOK ORGANIC INDUSTRIES LTD. & ANR. ============================================================= Appearance: MR PRANAV K TRIVEDI(9735) for the Petitioner(s) No. 1 ============================================================= CORAM:HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE HEMANT M. PRACHCHHAK Date : 06/03/2026 JUDGMENT 1. RULE. The present petition is taken up for nal hearing today. 2. Present petition is led by the petition under Articles 226 and 227 of the Constitution of India read with the provisions of The Industrial Disputes Act, 1947 seeking following reliefs: “A. YOUR LORDSHIP may be pleased to admit and allow the present petition; B. YOUR LORDSHIP may be pleased to issue a writ of certiorari or a writ in the nature of certiorari or any other appropriate writ, order or direction for quashing and setting aside the order dated 24-04-2025 passed below Exhibit -21 in Recovery (C-2) p. 1 Application No. 27 of 2019 by the Learned Labour Court, Vadodara; In the alternative, C. YOUR LORDSHIP may be pleased to remand back the proceedings to the Learned Labour Court, Vadodara, with a direction to adjudicate the application afresh on merits and in accordance with law, without being in9uenced by the question of delay; D. Such other and further relief or relieves as may be deem :t, just and proper, in the facts and circumstances of the case;” 3. Brief facts giving rise to the present petition are that, the petitioner was appointed as a Chemist on 18.05.1981 with respondent No.1 at Vadodara. That, the petitioner was promoted to the post of Plant In-charge w.e.f. 01.06.1994 and thereafter, w.e.f. 01.07.1999, the petitioner was further promoted as Senior O6cer (MCA Plant). That, on 06.11.2000 the petitioner was transferred by respondent No.1 to Ashok Alco-Chem Ltd., Mahad (Maharashtra) with continuity of service. That, despite subsisting employer-employee relationship, the respondents failed to pay lawful wages and dues to the petitioner. That, on 06.05.2011 name of respondent No.1 changed from Ashok Organic Industries Ltd. to Kumaka Industries Ltd. That, since respondent No. 1 failed to pay the lawful dues, the petitioner led Recovery (C-2) Application No. 27 of 2019 under Section 33-C(2) of the Industrial Disputes Act before the Labour Court, Vadodara seeking computation and recovery of monetary benets whereby, the Labour Court vide order dated 24.04.2025 rejected the application on the ground of considerable delay. 4. Being aggrieved and dissatised with the impugned order p. 2 dated 24.04.2025 passed by the Labour Court, the petitioner has preferred the present petition. 5. Heard Mr. Pranav Trivedi, learned counsel for the petitioner. Perused the materials available on record. 6. Learned counsel Mr. Trivedi 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. He has submitted that the Labour Court has not dealt with the documentary evidence relied upon by the petitioner and rejected the application entirely on the ground of delay and thus, ignoring the settled legal proposition that no period of limitation is prescribed for applications under section 33-C(2) of the Act. He has submitted that the Labour Court did not consider the fact that the proceedings under section 33-C(2) of the Industrial Disputes Act are in the nature of computation of an existing right, and not adjudication of a fresh dispute. He has submitted that the Labour Court has relied upon the false submissions made by the respondent No.1 that, respondent No.1 establishment was closed in the year 2001 however, the establishment was in existence till the year 2010. Over and above the grounds agitated in the memo of petition, learned counsel Mr. Trivedi has urged that the impugned order passed by the Labour Court is required to be quashed and set aside and the present petition is required to be allowed. 7. I have heard the learned advocate appearing for the petitioner and perused the material placed on record. I have also p. 3 considered the impugned order passed by the Labour Court. It appears from the record that the petitioner was employed with the respondent No.1 from 18.05.1981 and subsequently he was promoted to the post of Plant In-charge in June, 1994 and then as Senior O6cer (MCA Plant) in July, 1999. The petitioner was transferred to Ashok Alco-Chem Ltd. in Mahad, Maharashtra with continuity of service. It appears that despite subsisting employer-employee relationship, the respondents failed to pay lawful wages and dues to the petitioner. Consequently, the petitioner led Recovery (C-2) Application No. 27 of 2019 before Labour Court, Vadodara which came to be rejected on the ground of delay of 19 years in preferring the application. 7.1 At this juncture it would be appropriate to refer to the decision of the Hon'ble Supreme Court in case of Prabhakar vs. Joint Director Sericulture Department and another reported in (2015) 15 SCC 1 wherein the Hon’ble Supreme Court has discussed with regard to the existence of the industrial dispute for a long period and such a long period without any explanation cannot be considered by the Court. 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. Even this Court has decided the petition being Special Civil Application No.3643 of 2019 and dismissed the same where the delay of six years has been caused in preferring the award and/or petition. Considering the decision of the Hon'ble Supreme Court in the case of Prabhakar (supra) and p. 4 the order of this Court rendered in Special Civil Application No.3643 of 2019, no case is made out to entertain the present petition. 7.2 On the basis of the material produced before this Court and on perusal of the impugned order, and considering the fact that the application itself is led by the petitioner after gross delay of 19 years and in view of the reported decision of the Hon’ble Apex Court as well as of this Court as above, I am of the opinion that the present petition deserves to be dismissed. 8. In the result, the present petition is hereby dismissed. Rule is discharged. (HEMANT M. PRACHCHHAK,J) ANUSRI p. 5 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 10/03/2026 17:06:35