The court ruled that an undertaking obtained under duress from an employee to waive wage recovery rights is unconscionable and void, reinforcing the principle of equality in bargaining power.

JUDGMENT :

M. K. Thakker, J.

1. Rule returnable forthwith.

2. With the consent of both the parties, these petitions are taken up for final hearing. All three petitions are arising out of the same dispute, hence, same is discussed together.

3. This petition is filed under Article 14, 16, 226 and 227 of the Constitution of India seeking following reliefs:

“To quash and set aside all the impugned orders and to direct the respondent Authorities to pay the amount of recovery to the petitioner, forthwith, in the interest of justice.”

4. Heard learned advocate Mr.Yogen Pandya for the petitioner and learned AGP Ms.Surbhi Bhati for the State. Learned advocate Mr.Yogen Pandya has submitted that petitioner was appointed as per the details below:

in SCA No.19253 of 2021 in the year 1983,

in SCA No.19253 of 2021 in the year 1979,

in SCA No.19253 of 2021 in the year 1979.

5. Learned advocate Mr.Yogen pandya has submitted that the petitioner was appointed on Muster Roll as Permanent Daily Wager Canal Labourer-Chowkidar with respondent no.1 in the year 1983 run by Narmada Water Supply and Resources Department Government of Gujarat. Service of the petitioner was orally terminated from 01.08.1998, 15.07.1998 & 01.01.1999 without giving any reasons and without following any procedure under the Industrial Disputes Act, 1947. The industrial dispute was raised and same was referred to the learned labour court, Anand for the adjudication being reference no. 124/2000 and after hearing the respective parties, the award was passed in favour of the petitioner on 26.06.2012, 30.05.2012 & 30.05.2012 granting reinstatement without back wages with continuity of services. The said award of the learned labour Court was challenged by the respondent Authority before this Court by filling the Special Civil Application No.14147 of 2013, 14089 of 2013 & 14089 of 2013 which came to be rejected by this Court by directing the respondent no. 1 Authority to give effect of reinstatement to the petitioner workman in service within a period of 2 months from the date of order i.e. 07.10.2013 and has also held that petitioner shall be entitled for the wages from the date of order. Against aforesaid order Letters Patent Appeal cam to be filed alongwith application for condonation of delay, however, this Court has dismissed the appeal at the stage of condonation of delay. The petitioner Chandubhai Kalubhai Vaghri thereafter, has approached to the learned labour Court, Anand for implementing award passed by the learned labour court by filing the recovery application being no. 10 of 2014 for the interregnum period of 01.06.2012 to 28.02.2014 for the amount of wages of Rs.4,41,108/-. The recovery application no.3 of 2016 was filed preferring the recovery amount of wages of Rs.5,20,048/- for the interregnum period of 01.03.2014 to 31.12.2015. The petitioner Bharatbhai Ramjibhai Rathod thereafter, has approached to the learned labour Court, Anand for implementing award passed by the learned labour court by filing the recovery application being no. 9 of 2014 for the interregnum period of 01.06.2012 to 28.02.2014 for the amount of wages of Rs.4,41,108/-. The recovery application no.2 of 2016 was filed preferring the recovery amount of wages of Rs.5,20,048/- for the interregnum period of 01.03.2014 to 31.12.2015. The petitioner Bhawanbhai Zalabhai Bharvad thereafter, has approached to the learned labour Court, Anand for implementing award passed by the learned labour court by filing the recovery application being no. 11 of 2014 for the interregnum period of 01.06.2012 to 28.02.2014 for the amount of wages of Rs.4,41,108/-. The recovery application no.1 of 2016 was filed preferring the recovery amount of wages of Rs.5,20,048/- for the interregnum period of 01.03.2014 to 31.12.2015. Thereafter, petitioner was ultimately reinstated in the service on 01.04.2016 and on that day the undertaking was taken from the petitioner that he will withdraw the recovery application unconditionally in lieu of r