Facts
The respondent-workman was employed as a watchman by the petitioner from January 16, 1999
Source reference: p. 2His services were terminated on July 24, 2004, allegedly without following the due process under the Industrial Disputes Act, 1947
Source reference: p. 2The workman initiated a reference (LCV No. 622 of 2004) before the Labour Court, Vadodara.
Source reference: p. 3The petitioner failed to file a written statement and, despite filing an affidavit in a connected case, failed to appear for cross-examination
Source reference: p. 3, 5On November 24, 2016, the Labour Court held the termination illegal and ordered reinstatement with 30% back-wages
Source reference: p. 3Following non-compliance, the workman filed Recovery Applications (C-2 and C-1), resulting in orders dated December 16, 2022, and March 10, 2026, for the payment of accrued dues
Source reference: p. 5-6The petitioner challenged the original award and subsequent recovery orders in 2026 via a writ petition
Source reference: p. 1Issues
1. Whether the High Court should exercise its discretionary jurisdiction under Articles 226 and 227 of the Constitution to set aside an award and recovery orders despite a gross delay in approaching the court?
Source reference: p. 62. Whether the Labour Court's finding of illegal termination and the award of 30% back-wages warrant interference through re-appreciation of evidence?
Source reference: p. 6Law Applied
The court applied the discretionary principles governing Articles 226 and 227 of the Constitution of India, 1950, which preclude the High Court from entertaining petitions characterized by gross delay and laches
Source reference: p. 6under the settled principles of judicial review of industrial adjudications, the High Court cannot act as an appellate court to re-appreciate or re-assess evidence unless the findings are perverse or illegal
Source reference: p. 6statutory requirements for termination under the Industrial Disputes Act, 1947
Source reference: p. 2Reasoning
The Court observed that the petitioner allowed the reference proceedings to go unchallenged by failing to file a written statement or submit to cross-examination
Source reference: p. 5The petitioner remained inactive for ten years following the 2016 award, only approaching the High Court after a Recovery Certificate was issued in 2026
Source reference: p. 6The Court reasoned that the petitioner "woke up from the slumber" only after the financial consequences of the recovery proceedings became imminent
Source reference: p. 6Applying the standard of review for Articles 226 and 227, the Court found that since the Labour Court’s findings were based on the evidence of continuous service (240 days) and illegal termination, and were not "perversed," they could not be disturbed
Source reference: p. 6The court emphasized that writ jurisdiction cannot be used to re-evaluate facts that the petitioner failed to contest at the appropriate trial stage
Source reference: p. 6Holding
The High Court dismissed the petition, holding that it lacked merit due to the gross delay and the absence of any perversity in the Labour Court’s findings
The petitioner was directed to comply with the Labour Court’s award within four weeks of receipt of the judgment
Source reference: p. 6Original Court PDF
DEEP SECURITIES SERVICES THROUGH ITS OWNER PITAMBER RAMDUTT PATHAKvsMANGALBHAI SHANKARBHAI PARMAR
Click to open original judgment
Original judgment, available to read, download and summarize on LawLens.in