Purposive Interpretation Necessary: High Court at Calcutta Clarifies Arbitration Scope “If the Testimony is True, We Act on It”: Kerala High Court Upholds Convictions in Divakaran Murder Case State Cannot Utilize Private Land Without Legal Acquisition and Compensation: High Court Upholds Lower Courts’ Rulings Delhi High Court Stresses ‘Procedure is the Handmaid of Justice’ in Allowing New Evidence in IFFCO TOKIO Case Mere Suspicion Cannot Substitute Proof Beyond Reasonable Doubt – Allahabad High Court Acquits Rajveer Singh in Murder Case Non-Compliance with Labor Laws Cannot Deny Compensation for Informal Workers: Bombay High Court in Motor Accident Case Limitation Period Starts from Fraud Discovery, Not Sale Execution,” Rules Andhra Pradesh High Court Testamentary Court’s Role is Limited to Verifying Testamentary Disposition: Calcutta High Court Declares Appellant Cannot Say at One Time That a Process Is Valid to Gain an Advantage and Then Turn Around and Say It Is Invalid When the Result Is Unfavorable,” Rules High Court of Jammu & Kashmir and Ladakh A humane approach is warranted in cases involving senior citizens: High Court Grants Relief in Bank Loan Recovery Case, Allows Installment Repayments Compliance with Section 52A of NDPS Act is Mandatory”: High Court Acquits Accused in Ganja Case Unregistered Lease Deed Admissible Under Section 90 Evidence Act: Orissa High Court Restores Permanent Injunction Review Jurisdiction Cannot Be Used as "Backdoor Appeal" to Introduce New Evidence in Land Acquisition Cases: Supreme Court Payment Under Minimum Wages Act Does Not Establish Employment Relationship: High Court on Res Judicata in Labour Court Proceedings Taxation Law | Reopening Assessment Beyond Four Years Requires Proof of Failure to Disclose: Delhi High Court Rigors of Section 37 Cannot Override Medical Priority: Punjab and Haryana High Court Grants Bail on Medical Grounds in NDPS Case Consumer Law | Mere Deterioration of Condition Post-Surgery Does Not Imply Medical Negligence Without Proof of Lack of Skill or Care: Supreme Court Supreme Court Declares Accessibility Rules for Disabled Must Be Mandatory, Strikes Down Voluntary Standards as "Ultra Vires" Court's Role Under Section 11(6A) is Limited to Verifying Existence of Arbitration Agreement: Supreme Court Refers Dispute to Arbitration Section 37 of the Partnership Act Entitles Outgoing Partner to Profits Derived from Firm Assets Post-Dissolution Until Final Settlement: Supreme Court Media Cannot Act as a Parallel Court: Kerala High Court Examines Media’s Right to Report Pending Criminal Cases and Court Proceedings

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

Similar News