Back
IN THE HIGH COURT OF GUJARAT AT AHMEDABAD
MAUNA M. BHATT, J.
Vishwkarma Technomec Industries By And Through Its Partner Nehal Divyakant Amin – Petitioner
Versus
Baluben Devisingh Solanki – Respondent
R/Special Civil Application No. 4761 Of 2024
Decided On : 28-03-2024
FRAUD - Labour Dispute - Industrial Disputes Act, 1947, Payment of Wages Act - 16.04.2019, 30.03.2021, 27.07.2021 - The court discussed the fraudulent actions of the workman, suppression of material facts, and misrepresentation, and their impact on the award and recovery proceedings. The court also highlighted the importance of evidence presented before the Labour Court and the limited scope of judicial review under Article 227 of the Constitution of India.
Fact of the Case:
The respondent workman was terminated by the petitioner-Company and raised a dispute before the Labour Court. The Labour Court awarded reinstatement with backwages, and subsequent recovery proceedings were initiated.
Finding of the Court:
The court found that the petitioner's delay in challenging the award, suppression of material facts, and unexplained delay in filing the petition warranted rejection. The court also noted the invalidity of the settlement and emphasized the limited scope of judicial review.
Issues: Delay in filing the petition, suppression of material facts, validity of the settlement, and the scope of judicial review.
Ratio Decidendi: The court emphasized the importance of evidence presented before the Labour Court, the limited scope of judicial review, and the impact of delay and suppression of material facts on the petition.
Final Decision: The petition was rejected, and the rule was discharged.
JUDGMENT :
1. Rule returnable forthwith. Mr. U.T.Mishra, learned advocate waives service of rule on behalf of respondent.
2. This petition is filed seeking following reliefs:
(B) Pending hearing and final disposal of the petition this Hon’ble Court may be pleased to stay the execution, implementation and operation of the Award dated 16.04.2019 (produced at Annexure-A to this petition) passed by the learned Labour Court, Ahmedabad in Reference (LCA) Case No.502 of 2007 along with the order dated 30.03.2021 (produced at Annexure-B to this petition) passed by the Authority Payment and Wages Act, Labour Court in Payment of Wages Application No.277 of 2019 and order dated 27.07.2021 (produced at Annexure -C to this petition) issuing Recovery Certificate bearing No.16 of 2021 by the learned Labour Court to the District Collector for recovery of the amount.
(C) This Hon’ble Court may be pleased to issue appropriate orders and directions as may be necessary from time to time as required under Section 195r/w. S.340 of the Code of Criminal Procedure and for the said purpose be pleased to issue appropriate process against the respondent, and accordingly be pleased to take cognizance against the respondent for offences found to be committed by the respondent and liable to be committed by the respondent and liable to be tried, adjudicated and to pass all necessary and consequential orders in accordance with law.
(D) This Hon’ble Court may kindly be pleased to pass such other and further order which deems to fit, just and proper in the interest of justice.”
3. The facts in brief as referred in the petition are as under:
3.1. The respondent workman was engaged with the petitioner-Company as helper w.e.f. April, 1997. It was case of respondent workman before the Labour Court that she was terminated illegally w.e.f. 28.08.2006. The provisions of the Industrial Disputes Act, 1947 (“The Act” for short) were not followed. For the said termination, the respondent-workman raised dispute before the Labour Court, Ahmedabad registered as Reference (LCA) No.502 of 2007. Upon adjudication, the Labour Court, Ahmedabad by award dated 16.04.2019 held the termination of workman as illegal. The Labour Court awarded reinstatement with continuity and 100% backwages. Consequent to the award dated 16.04.2019, payment of wages application No. 277 of 2019 was filed by the workman and the same came to be allowed by order dated 30.03.2021. Recovery Certificate No. 16 of 2021, dated 27.07.2021 was also issued in favour of respondent-workman. Aggrieved by (i) award dated 16.04.2019 in Reference (LCA) No. 502 of 2007, (ii) order dated 30.03.2021 in payment of wages application No.277 of 2019, and (iii) Recovery Certificate No.16 of 2021 dated 27.07.2021, the present petition is filed.
4. Heard Mr. Chintan Desai, learned advocate for the petitioner and Mr. U.T.Mishra, learned advocate for the respondent-workman on caveat.
5. Considering the issue involved and with the consent of the parties, the present petition is taken up for final hearing.
6. Mr. Desai, learned advocate for the petitioner made following submissions:
The importance of evidence presented before the Labour Court, the limited scope of judicial review, and the impact of delay and suppression of material facts on the petition.
Point of Law - The only contention raised by the petitioner is that the recovery proceedings are filed beyond the period of limitation provided under section 33C(1) of the I.D. Act, which stipulates ....
While the Limitation Act does not strictly apply to industrial disputes, courts discourage over-stale claims that lack satisfactory explanation for prolonged delay, as such claims disrupt industrial ....
The main legal point established in the judgment is the entitlement of an employee to claim wages for the period between dismissal and reinstatement, as per the provisions of the Industrial Disputes ....
The Labour Court does not become functus officio after the award has become enforceable, as far as the ex parte award is concerned. It is within the powers of the Labour Court/Tribunal to entertain a....
The existence of a binding settlement under Section 2(p) of the Industrial Disputes Act negates claims of workmen, especially when raised after an excessive delay of 19 years.
Delay in filing a reference does not preclude adjudication on merits, especially when the dispute remains alive.
A workman filing for wages under Section 17B must truthfully disclose employment status; failure to do so results in disqualification from back wages despite wrongful termination.
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
