Knife Never Found, Depth of Wounds Unknown: Delhi HC Refuses To Upgrade Stabbing Conviction From Grievous Hurt To Attempt To Murder 'AL KAMDHENU GOLD' Belongs To Kamdhenu, Not Ashiana: Delhi HC Finds 2002 Agreement Was A Licence, Not An Assignment — Grants Injunction Against Steel Rival Land Acquired In 2004 At ₹19,660/sq.m — Company Can Now Claim ₹1,30,000/sq.m After Neighbour's Plot Gets That Rate: Delhi HC Allows Amendment After 16 Years State Used Eminent Domain to Hand Over 53 Acres to a Non-Existent Company: Karnataka High Court Quashes Acquisition, Orders CBI Investigation Trademark | Passing Off Action Requires Only Likelihood Of Confusion, Not Strict Proof Of Counterfeiting: Madras High Court Buyer Failing To Pay Full Amount On Time Cannot Sustain Cheating Case If Seller Transfers Property To Third Party: Madhya Pradesh High Court State Cannot Arbitrarily Deviate From Merit-Based Posting SOP For Senior Resident Doctors: Calcutta High Court Ready Reckoner Rates Cannot Form Sole Basis For Determining Land Acquisition Compensation: Bombay High Court MACT Cannot Decide Personal Accident Claims of Vehicle Owners: Madras High Court Sets Aside Rs. 15 Lakh Award Specific Performance | Sale Agreement to Cheat Stamp Duty Is Void, But Buyer Still Gets Money Back: Madras High Court Higher Degree Cannot Substitute Essential Work Experience; Preference Operates Only Among Eligible Candidates: Supreme Court Legal Representatives Aggrieved By Arbitral Award Must Challenge It Under Section 34 Arbitration Act, Not Article 227: Supreme Court

19-Year Delay & Suppression of Facts Renders Industrial Dispute Non-Maintainable: Gujarat High Court Sets Aside Labour Court’s Awards

07 May 2024 8:19 AM

By: Admin


In a landmark judgment, the Gujarat High Court under Justice Mauna M. Bhatt quashed the Labour Court’s ex-parte awards concerning the reinstatement and back wages of workers of Gurukrupa Procons Pvt. Ltd. The Court underscored the significant delay in dispute initiation and suppression of settlement facts as grounds for its decision.

The judgment addressed critical aspects concerning the limitation period in raising industrial disputes, the binding nature of a Section 2(p) settlement under the Industrial Disputes Act, and the resultant non-existence of an industrial dispute. Additionally, it delved into the inapplicability of Section 17B wages in this context.

Gurukrupa Procons Pvt. Ltd. Contested Labour Court’s awards related to the termination of workers following the company’s shutdown in 1997. The dispute was belatedly raised by the workers in 2015, almost two decades later, bringing into question the timeliness and authenticity of the claims.

Excessive Delay: The Court highlighted that initiating a dispute 19 years after termination lacked justification, aligning with precedents set by the Supreme Court.

Misrepresentation and Fraud: It was observed that the workmen failed to disclose an earlier settlement under Section 2(p) in their claims, amounting to a fraud on the court.

Absence of an Industrial Dispute: Given the previous settlement under Section 2(p), the Court stated that there was no existing industrial dispute as defined under Section 2(k) of the Act.

Non-Applicability of Section 17B Wages: The Court ruled that the claim for wages under Section 17B was unsustainable due to the significant delay, absence of a dispute, and misrepresentation.

The High Court set aside the ex-parte awards dated 18.07.2017 in Reference (T) Nos. 50 to 52 of 2016, along with all related consequential orders and actions. The petition was thus allowed, and the rule was made absolute.

Date of Decision: 15th February 2024.

Gurukrupa Procons Pvt Ltd Vs. Abhesinh Nathabhai Damor

Latest Legal News