M.R.SHAH, J. - (1.) As common question of law and facts arise in this group of Letters Patent Appeals and as such arise out of the impugned common judgment and order passed by the learned Single Judge passed in Special Civil Application Nos. 9232 of 2014 to 9237 of 2014, by which, the learned Single Judge has dismissed the aforesaid Special Civil Applications preferred by the respective appellants herein- original workman and has confirmed the respective orders passed by the learned Labour Court allowing the respective Miscellaneous Applications preferred by the Management under Rule 26A / 26B of the Industrial Disputes (Gujarat) Rules, 1966 and has set aside the respective ex-parte judgment and award passed by the Labour Court, Kalol, the original workmen have preferred by the present Letters Patent Appeal under Clause 15 of the Letters Patent.
(2.) Feeling aggrieved and dissatisfied with the impugned common judgment and order passed by the learned Single Judge passed in Special Civil Application Nos. 9232 of 2014 to 9237 of 2014, the respective original petitioners - original workmen have preferred the present Letters Patent Appeal Nos. 842 of 2017 to 847 of 2017. The statement showing number of Letters Patent Appeals, number of Special Civil Applications, name of the workmen and number of Miscellaneous Applications in respective References is as under: JUDGEMENT_115_LAWS(GJH)3_2018.html 2.1. For the sake of convenience, facts in Letters Patent Appeal No. 842 of 2017 are narrated. 2.2. That the original workman- appellant of Letters Patent Appeal No. 842 of 2017 was terminated from service in the year 1990. The workman raised an industrial dispute challenging the said termination, which was referred to Labour Court, Kalol, which was numbered as Reference (LCK) No. 81 of 1991. That the notice came to be issued upon the respondent - employer and the respondent-employer was duly served. That the respondent - employer appeared through their Advocate and filed appearance below Exh.5. The employer also filed reply to the statement of claim below Exh.3. However, thereafter the Employer chose not to remain present and after a period of 9 years, the Labour Court passed ex-parte judgment and award dated 07.03.2002 directing the Employer to reinstate the workmen with full back wages. It appears that the said award was published in the gazette on 26.06.2002 and Employer was issued notice along with copy of the award. As the judgment and award passed by the Labour Court was not complied with by the Labour Court, the workman initiated the Recovery Proceedings under Section 33 C(2) of the Industrial Disputes Act being Recovery Application No. 184 of 2002. Even in the Recovery Application also employer did not remain present despite the notice was duly served. Therefore, the Labour Court passed ex-parte order in the Recovery Application on 27.09.2004 and thereafter issued the Recovery Certificate accordingly on 27.06.2005 and 27.07.2006. That thereafter, after a period of approximately 6 years and 7 months of passing ex-parte judgment and award, the Employer filed an application for condonation of delay in preferring application under Rule 26 A of the Industrial Dispute (Gujarat) Rules being Miscellaneous Application No. 12 of 2009. That the workman filed reply to the said application and objected the condonation of delay. That by order dated 24.09.2009, the learned Labour Court dismissed the said application for condonation of delay after recording the reasons that the employer did not remain present for hearing of the said application. That the employer approached this Court by way of Special Civil Application No.5599 of 2010 and 5600 of 2010 and prayed for quashing and setting aside the ex-parte judgment and award passed by the Labour Court as well as order passed in Miscellaneous Application as well as Recovery Certificate. In the meantime, pursuant to the Recovery Certificate the employer deposited the cheques with the appropriate authority, by the time the aforesaid Special Civil Applications came up for hearing before the learned Single Judge. That by order dated 13.05.2010, the learned Single Judge did not entertain the aforesaid Special Civil Applications on the ground of alternative remedy available to the Employer to submit appropriate application under Rule 26 A / 26B of the Industrial Dispute (Gujarat) Rules for setting aside the ex-parte award, the ex-parte order passed in Recovery Application etc. and relegated the Employer to avail the statutory remedy available under Rule 26 A and 26 B of the Industrial Dispute (Gujarat) Rules. The learned Single Judge has also observed that it will be open for the Employer to support the delay condonation which also may be considered in accordance with law and on its merits. The leaned Single Judge also observed that it will be open for the Employer to submit appropriate application to set aside the ex-part order in Recovery Application. The learned Single Judge also passed an order that amount already deposited and / or to be deposited, which was deposited by way of post dated cheques may not be realized and the same may be deposited before the Labour Court, Kalol till appropriate order is passed by the Labour Court in the application under Rule 26 A / 26 B of Industrial Dispute (Gujarat) Rules. It appears that and pursuant to the order passed by the learned Single Judge passed in Special Civil Application Nos. 5599 of 2010 and 5600 of 2010 dated 13.05.2010, the Employer preferred Miscellaneous Application No. 11 of 2010 in Reference (LCK) No. 81 of 1991 for condoning the delay in preferring application for restoration. At this stage, it is required to be noted that earlier delay condonation of application was dismissed for default and therefore, objection was raised by the workman that fresh application for condonation of delay shall not be maintainable when the earlier application for condonation of delay in preferring Restoration Application was dismissed for default, The learned Labour Court accepted the said objection raised by the workman and rejected the Miscellaneous Application No. 11 of 2010. That thereafter, Employer preferred Miscellaneous Application No. 20 of 2010 in Miscellaneous Application No. 12 of 2009 for condonation of delay in filing Restoration Application, which was preferred for condonation of delay in preferring the Restoration Application of the award, which came to be allowed by the learned Labour Court vide order dated 17.07.2010. That thereafter, the Employer preferred Miscellaneous Application No. 31 of 2010 for condonation of delay in preferring the Restoration Application and same came to be allowed. Thereafter, Employer preferred fresh application for restoration of the award under Rule 26 A of the Industrial Dispute (Gujarat) Rules. The said fresh restoration application came to be withdrawn by pursis dated 27.03.2012. The learned Labour Court passed the order dated 1.5.2014 impugned before the learned Single Judge allowing the restoration application and quashed and set aside the ex-parte judgment and award mainly and solely relying upon and / or considering the earlier order passed by this Court passed in Special Civil Application No. 5599 of 2010 and 5600 of 2010 by specifically observing that in view of the order passed by this Court in aforesaid Special Civil Applications, nothing further is required to be done in the restoration application and ex-parte judgment and award passed by the Labour Court is required to be quashed and set aside and References are required to be decided on merits. 2.3. Feeling aggrieved and dissatisfied with order passed by the Labour Court dated 1.5.2014 passed in Miscellaneous Application No. 12 of 2009, the workman preferred Special Civil Application No.9232 of 2014. Similar orders are passed by the Labour Court in respective Miscellaneous Applications particulars of which are stated herein above, which are subject matter before the learned Single Judge by way of Special Civil Application Nos. 9233 of 2014 to 9237 of 2014. By impugned judgment and order, the learned Single Judge has dismissed all the petitions and confirmed the respective orders passed by the Labour Court, Kalol passed in respective Miscellaneous Applications quashing and setting aside the judgment and award passed by the Labour Court passed in respective References. 2.4. Feeling aggrieved and dissatisfied with the impugned common judgment and award passed by the learned Single Judge passed in Special Civil Application No. 9232 of 2014 to 9237 of 2014, the original workmen have preferred the present Letters Patent Appeals under Clause 15 of the Letters Patent.
(3.) We have heard Shri Mulani, learned advocate for Shri Digant Popat, learned advocate for the original workmen and Shri K.M. Patel, learned Senior Advocate with Shri Varun Patel, learned advocate for the Employer.;