IN THE HIGH COURT OF GUJARAT AT AHMEDABAD R/SPECIAL CIVIL APPLICATION NO. 10013 of 2025 FOR APPROVAL AND SIGNATURE: HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE HEMANT M. PRACHCHHAK ================================================================ Approved for Reporting Yes No ================================================================ LEGAL HEIRS OF DECEASED ABBAS ISMAILBHAI MANEK SHARIFABEN ABBASBHAI MANEK W/O DECD Versus BHARATBHAI HARAKHCHAND SHAH ================================================================ Appearance: MR YOGEN N PANDYA(5766) for the Petitioner(s) No. 1 JEET Y RAJYAGURU(8039) for the Respondent(s) No. 1 ================================================================ CORAM:HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE HEMANT M. PRACHCHHAK Date : 03/03/2026 JUDGMENT 1. RULE returnable forthwith. Learned counsel Mr. Jeet Rajyaguru, waives service of notice of Rule for and on behalf of the respondent. 2. Present petition is "led by the petitioner 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 order dated 07.05.2025 passed by the learned Commissioner for Workmen Compensation, Jamnagar in W.C. Misc. Application (Delay) No. 22 of 2024, whereby, the learned Judge has rejected the application "led by the petitioner for condonation of delay in preferring application for review of an ex parte order dated p. 2 08.07.2016 passed by the Workmen Commissioner & Labour Judge, Jamnagar in Workmen Compensation (Fatal) Case No. 12 of 2013. 3. Brief facts giving rise to the present petition are that, the husband of the petitioner was doing labour work with the respondent and was drawing salary of Rs. 500/- per day. During the service with the respondent, on 10.06.2016, the husband of the petitioner met with an accident and died and therefore, the petitioner "led Workmen Compensation (Fatal) Case No.12 of 2013 before the Workmen Commissioner & Labour Judge, Jamnagar. That, the Labour Court proceeded with the Workman Compensation (Fatal) Case No.12 of 2013 but, due to absence of the learned advocate of the petitioner, the Laour Court passed an ex parte order on 08.07.2016. That, the petitioner as and when came to know about the order passed in the aforesaid case, "led application for restoration of the W.C. (Fatal) Case No.12 of 2013, wherein the delay has been occurred due to some unavoidable circumstances. That, the Labour Court without considering the submissions and evidence of the petitioner rejected the application by not condoning the delay by way of impugned order dated 07.05.2025. 4. Being aggrieved and dissatis"ed with the impugned order dated 07.05.2022 passed by the learned Commissioner in W.C. Misc. Application (Delay) No. 22 of 2024, the petitioner has preferred this petition. 5. Since the impugned order under challenge is passed by the Commissioner for Workmen Compensation under Workmen’s Compensation Act, 1923, against which appeal is to be "led under Section 30 of the Act, instead, the petitioner has preferred this p. 3 petition invoking jurisdiction under Articles 226 & 227 of the Constitution of India, which is not maintainable in view of the alternative e@cacious remedy provided under the statute and thus, the petition is misconceived and the same is required to be dismissed. 6. In view of above, the petition is hereby dismissed. Rule is discharged. It is observed that this Court has not gone into the merits of the matter having lack of jurisdiction. 7. It is open for the petitioner to take appropriate recourse provided under the statute by way of "ling appropriate application. (HEMANT M. PRACHCHHAK,J) Dolly