JUDGMENT :

NIRAL R. MEHTA, J.

1. By way of this Letters Patent Appeal under Clause 15 of the Letters Patent, the original respondent has called in question the order dated 03rd March, 2022 passed in Special Civil Application No. 3896 of 2020 and allied matters by which the learned Single Judge has quashed and set aside the order dated 09th December, 2019 passed by Labour Court, Bhavnagar and directed the Labour Court to restore all those recovery applications to their original files and decide the same after affording opportunity of hearing to the parties.

2. Brief facts can be summarised as under:

2.1 The services of the respondent-employees came to be terminated, thus, Reference Case No. 495 of 1989 was filed which was adjudicated on merits and allowed in favour of the workmen. The appellant herein being aggrieved by the aforesaid, approached this Court wherein order of the Labour Court came to be confirmed and pursuant thereto, the employees were reinstated since February, 2007. Since then they are in service.

2.2 After reinstatement, workmen were not being paid in parity with permanent employees. The workmen thereby approached the Labour Court under the provisions of Section 33-C(2) of the Industrial Disputes Act, 1947 by way of Recovery Application No. 100 of 2017 seeking, inter alia, difference of wages, which came to be rejected by the Labour Court vide order dated 09th December, 2019.

2.3 Being aggrieved by the aforesaid, the respondent-workmen approached this Court by way of Special Civil Application No. 3896 of 2020 and other allied matters. The said petitions came to be allowed by the learned Single Judge vide order dated 03rd March, 2022.

3. Being aggrieved by and dissatisfied with the aforesaid, the appellant-employer is before this Court by way of present Letters Patent Appeal.

4. We have heard learned advocate Mr.Baiju Joshi for the appellant and learned advocate Mr.Aditya Pandya for the respondents in all the Letters Patent Appeals, at length.

4.1 Mr.Joshi, learned advocate for the appellant, has submitted that the order passed by the learned Single Judge is contrary to the settled legal provisions. He further submitted that the findings arrived at by the learned Single Judge regarding the impugned order being incoherent is not true and correct as the learned Presiding Officer of the Labour Court has relied on the decision of the Hon’ble High Court as well as decision of the Apex Court and thereby the said finding of the learned Single Judge is not justified. Mr.Joshi next submitted that the Presiding Officer of the Labour Court has rightly dismissed the application filed by the workmen under Section 33-C(2) of the Act on the pretext that there is no prior adjudication and/or no pre-existing rights. According to learned advocate for the appellant, recovery under Section 33-C(2) without any adjudication is not maintainable and learned Labour Court was perfectly justified in dismissing the same. However, learned Single Judge has committed grave error in appreciating the provision of Section 33-C(2) of the Act vis-a-vis law laid down by the Apex Court. Mr.Joshi submitted that mechanism under Section 33-C(2) is a kind of execution in nature and thus the said proceedings cannot be determined without there being any prior adjudication. Mr.Joshi submitted that in the instant case, admittedly, there is no adjudication and therefore, application under Section 33- C(2) has no legs to stand and accordingly, learned Presiding Officer of the Labour Court had rightly dismissed the application.

4.2 To substantiate the aforesaid contention, learned advocate has relied on the decision of the Apex Court in the case of Bombay Chemical Industries vs. Deputy Labour Commissioner, (2022) 5 SCC 629 as also the judgment of this Court in the case of PBM Polytex Ltd. vs. Dineshkumar S. Vyas passed in Special Civil Application No. 5906 of 2005 decided on 31st March, 2014.

4.3 By making above submissions, learned advocate Mr.Joshi for the appellant h