Back
IN THE HIGH COURT OF GUJARAT AT AHMEDABAD
A.S. SUPEHIA, J.
Delhi Punjab Goods Carrier Pvt. Ltd. Through manager Pavankumar Gyanchand Sharma - Appellant
Versus
Suresh Hanumanprasad Sharma - Respondent
R/Special Civil Application No.13215 of 2020
Decided on : 16-09-2021
Industrial Disputes Act, 1947 - Section 33(c) – Constitution of India, 1950 - Article 14 & 19(1)(g) - Industrial Disputes Gujarat Rules, 1966 - Rule 26A – Equality before law – Freedom to practice or carry on any occupation, trade or business.
Findings of the Court - Court had granted time to petitioner to arrive at compromise with respondent-workman however, despite various orders and dismissal of writ petition, no compromise has been arrived at - It is not in dispute that workman was terminated in August, 1998 and by award passed in Reference (LCS) , his termination was declared as illegal and same was set aside by Labour Court, by directing petitioner to reinstate respondent workman within a period of 30 days, after publication of award - Today, almost 16 years have passed and respondent-workman is yet to enjoy fruits of his litigation due to recalcitrant attitude of petitioner towards all aforementioned proceedings orders passed by Court of law - Only contention raised by petitioner is that recovery proceedings are filed beyond period of limitation provided under section 33C(1) of I.D. Act, which stipulates limitation of one year filing an application from date on which money became due to a workman from employer - As recorded hereinabove, initial recovery application being Recovery Application was filed within limitation, and Labour Court has also recorded a finding to that effect, hence contention raised by petitioner does not merit acceptance - Later recovery applications are filed since petitioner did not comply with award and order passed by Labour Court - Same were filed for recovery of his legal dues as and when he became entitled - Judgments, on which reliance is placed by petitioner, cannot come to his rescue in wake of remissness, slipshod and carefree attitude of petitioner towards all proceedings - It was always open for petitioner to file an application under Rule 26A of Industrial Disputes Gujarat Rules, 1966 for setting aside the ex-parte award - petitioner did not avail such remedy also and after realizing that he has no option, but to comply with orders passed by Labour Court, as a last effort he has filed present petition - Petitioner was also negligent in pursuing writ petition being Special Civil Application as he did not care to restore same after it was dismissed for non-prosecution vide order - In present writ petition, notice was only issued for compromise, but he has also failed to arrive at any compromise with respondent-workman - In order to see that petitioner still has a fair opportunity to explain his case and he might settle matter or respect orders, he was also heard on merits, but he has failed to impress this Court in that regard also, hence writ petition deserves to be rejected.
Result – Petition disposed of.
ORDER :
1. The present petition has been filed, inter alia, seeking the following prayers:
“(A) xxx xxx xxx
(B) Pending hearing and admission of the petition; Hon’ble Court may be pleased to direct the Respondent no.2; Mamlatdar Alien Recovery; not to take any coercive steps against petitioner.
(C) Pending hearing and admission of the petition; Hon’ble Court may be pleased to Stay the implementation and execution of impugned order dated 7.05.2005 passed in Ref. (LCS) No.884/99; granting reinstatement to respondent on original post with 100% back wages for seven years; for the period of from 26.08.98 (date of alleged termination) till 7.05.20005 (date of Award) - Rs. 3,77,609/- and subsequent orders passed in Recovery Applications.
(D) Yours Lordships may be pleased to issue a writ of Mandamus or a writ in nature of mandamus or any other appropriate writ or order holding and declaring that the impugned award dated 7.05.2005 in Ref. (LCS) No. 884/99 granting reinstatement on original post with 100% back wages for seven years; for the period of from 26.08.98 (date of alleged termination) till 7.05.20005 (date of Award) - Rs. 3,77,609/- is violative of Article 14 & 19(1)(g) and is required to be quashed and set aside. (At Annexure-A)
(E) Yours Lordships may be pleased to issue a writ of Mandamus or a writ in nature of mandamus or a writ of certiorari or a writ in the nature of certiorari or any other appropriate writ order or directions quashing and setting aside the impugned order dated 7.05.2005 passed in Ref. (LCS) No. 884/99 and order dated 24.04.2009 passed in Recovery Application No.8/06 in Ref. (LCS) No. 884/99 for recovery of Rs. 3,77,609/-, order dated 7.08.2013 passed in Recovery Application No.38/09 in Ref. (LCS) No. 884/99 for recovery of Rs. 1,73,175/-, order dated 11.03.2016, passed in Recovery Application No.515/13 in Ref. (LCS) No. 884/99 for recovery of Rs. 1,53,675/- and order dated 14.02.2018 passed in Recovery Application No.69 of 2016 in Ref. (LCS) No. 884/99 for recovery of Rs. 1,19,875/- and respective Recovery Certificates. (At Annexure- B to E)”
2. As the prayer clause suggests the petitioner has challenged the award dated 07.05.2005 passed in Reference (LCS) No.884 of 1999 by the Labour Court, Surat and the subsequent orders Recovery Applications. Thus, after a period of 16 years, the petitioner, all of a sudden waking up from slumber, has challenged the impugned award on the ground that the same is an ex-parte and the subsequent orders passed in the Recovery Applications filed by the respondent workman are also challenged.
2.1 On 03.11.2020, in the present writ petition this Court has passed the following order:
“When the matter is taken up for hearing, Ms. Yogini Parikh, learned advocate for the petitioner has earnestly requested to issue notice for the purpose of compromise as there is a chance of overall resolution. Considering this request, Notice only for the purpose of compromise, returnable on 04.12.2020. Direct service is permitted.”
2.2 Thus, the notice was issued only for the purpose of compromise. Thereafter, on 05.08.2021, when the matter was taken up, the submissions made by the learned advocate for the respondent workman was recorded by this Court, wherein he has stated that as per his calculations, the outstanding amount would be around Rs.8,00,000/- to Rs.9,00,000/-. In order to see that any settlement is arrived at between the parties, the matter was adjourned and it was observed that if no settlement is arrived at by the next date of hearing, the matter will be examined on merits.
2.3 Today, it is informed by the learned advocates for the respective parties that no settlement has been arrived.
3. Learned advocate for the petitioner has submitted that the petitioner is ready and willing to abide by the award dated 07.05.2005 passed by the Labour Court, Surat in Reference (LCS) No.884 of 1999 however, she is aggrieved by the further orders passed in the Recovery Applications. It is submitted by her
SupremeToday
An indispensable Tool for Legal Professionals, Endorsed by Various High Court and Judicial Officers
Please visit our Training & Support
Center or Contact Us for assistance
Scan Me!
India’s Legal research and Law Firm App, Download now!
For Daily Legal Updates, Join us on :
Back to top
