IN THE HIGH COURT OF GUJARAT AT AHMEDABAD R/LETTERS PATENT APPEAL NO. 629 of 2025 In R/SPECIAL CIVIL APPLICATION/12983/2022 With CIVIL APPLICATION (FOR STAY) NO. 1 of 2025 In R/LETTERS PATENT APPEAL NO. 629 of 2025 With R/LETTERS PATENT APPEAL NO. 636 of 2025 In R/SPECIAL CIVIL APPLICATION NO. 12916 of 2022 With CIVIL APPLICATION (FOR STAY) NO. 1 of 2025 In R/LETTERS PATENT APPEAL NO. 636 of 2025 In R/SPECIAL CIVIL APPLICATION NO. 12916 of 2022 ================================================================

CHAIRMAN/ MANAGER, PRAGATI COOPERATIVE BANK LIMITED Versus KAUSHIKBHAI NANALAL PATEL ================================================================

Appearance:

MR SACHIN VASAVDA for MR MEHUL C MEHTA(9386) for the Appellant(s)

No. 1 MR RAJESH P MANKAD(2637) for the Respondent(s) No. 1 ================================================================

CORAM:HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE BHARGAV D. KARIA And HONOURABLE MR.JUSTICE L. S. PIRZADA Date : 20/02/2026

ORAL ORDER

(PER : HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE BHARGAV D. KARIA)

1. Heard learned advocate Mr. Sachin Vasavda appearing for learned advocate Mr.Mehul C. Mehta for the appellant and learned advocate Mr.Rajesh P. Mankad appearing for respondent No.1.

2. Learned advocate Mr.Sachin Vasavda for appellant has tendered the draft amendment. The same is allowed in terms of the draft. To be carried out forthwith.

3. These appeals were heard from time to time. By these appeals under Clause 15 of the Letters Patent, 1865, the appellant-Bank being aggrieved has challenged the Common Order dated 28.01.2025 passed in Special Civil Application No.12916 of 2022 and Special Civil Application No.12983 of 2022.

4. The short question which arises for consideration before this Court is whether a Recovery Application under Section 33C(2) of the I. D. Act of The Industrial Disputes Act, 1947 (for short, “the I.D. Act”) is maintainable for recovery of the difference of salary of overtime wages, bonus, provident fund, etc.; and secondly, whether the Labour Court was justified in entertaining the application under Section 33C(2) of the I.D. Act filed for recovery of the aforesaid differences in emoluments, as against the remedy available under Section 78 of The Bombay Industrial Relations Act, 1946 (for short “the B.I.R. Act”).

5. The brief facts of the case are as under:

5.1 The petitioner – Co-operative Bank has been doing the business of banking and is covered under the provisions of the B.I.R. Act and was entitled to enter into settlement with the representative-Union. The respondent No.1 was working as clerk with the petitioner – Bank and was availing benefits of settlement arrived at between the petitioner – Bank and Union from 2002-2003 onwards.

5.2 On 30.01.2010, the respondent retired on attaining the age of superannuation and thereafter, preferred a Recovery Application under Section 33C(2) of the I.D. Act, claiming that being an ex-employee, he would be entitled for the benefits in view of the settlement dated 01.01.2000 entered into as per Section 2(35) of the B.I.R. Act between the appellant Bank and the Representative- Union, and accordingly, claim was made for the difference of salary, overtime, bonus, leave encashment, provident fund and casual leave.

5.3 The appellant-Bank filed a written statement contending that the amount payable as per the settlement has already been paid to the respondent because as per the settlement the respondent would be entitled to such benefit only after completion of three years. It was also contended that the Labour Court had no jurisdiction to entertain such Recovery Application straightaway and adjudicate the claim of respondent No.1 in view of the provisions of Section 78 of the B.I.R. Act read with Item No.5 of Schedule III pertaining to the interpretation, construction and terms of the agreement/settlement as per Section 42 of the B.I.R. Act.

5.4 The Labour Court, however, after considering the rival claims, ordered the appellant-Bank to pay Rs.1,43,228/- with 6% simple i