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 p. 1 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 dissatised 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 p. 3 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 p. 4 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 inrmity 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 p. 5 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 justied. 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 p. 6 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