C/SCA/20094/2017 JUDGMENT DATED: 14/03/2022

IN THE HIGH COURT OF GUJARAT AT AHMEDABAD

R/SPECIAL CIVIL APPLICATION NO. 20094 of 2017

With

R/SPECIAL CIVIL APPLICATION NO. 21067 of 2017

FOR APPROVAL AND SIGNATURE: Sd/-

HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE A.Y. KOGJE

=============================================

1 Whether Reporters of Local Papers may be allowed to see

the judgment ?

NO

2 To be referred to the Reporter or not ?

NO

3 Whether their Lordships wish to see the fair copy of the

judgment ?

NO

4 Whether this case involves a substantial question of law as

to the interpretation of the Constitution of India or any

order made thereunder ?

NO

=============================================

SHROFF ENGINEERING LIMITED & 1 other(s)

Versus

KANUBHAI CHAGANBHAI RATHVA & 3 other(s)

=============================================

Appearance:

UTSAV P PARIKH(8223) for the Petitioner(s) No. 1,2

VIVAN T SHAH(7947) for the Petitioner(s) No. 1,2

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

============================================

CORAM:HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE A.Y. KOGJE

Date : 14/03/2022

ORAL JUDGMENT

1. RULE. Learned Advocate Mr. Rajesh Mankad waives service of rule on

behalf of the respondent No.1. Learned Senior Advocate Mr. G.M. Joshi

with learned Advocate Dr. Venugopal Patel have appeared for the

Page 1 of 13

C/SCA/20094/2017 JUDGMENT DATED: 14/03/2022

petitioner- contractor and learned Advocate Mr.Utsav Parikh with

learned Advocate Mr. Kunan Naik have appeared for the petitioner

principal employer.

2. These group of petitions are arising out of the same facts and issues and

between the same parties meaning thereby the employer on one side as

the petitioner and workman as the respondents individually in each of

the respective petitions of the group. Facts are recorded from the lead

matter i.e. Special Civil Application No.20091 of 2017.

3. The petitions are challenging the order of the Labour Court dated 01-

04-2017 passed in the respective Recovery Applications filed by the

workman individually. The order of the Labour Court is the subject

matter of challenge by the petitioners who are the principal employer

and the Contractor through whom the respondent – workman was

engaged. The respondent – workman had filed Recovery Application

No.311 of 2008 before the Labour Court, wherein the workman had

claimed Rs.44,686.40. By the impugned order dated 01-04-2017, the

Labour Court passed the order holding that workman is entitled to

recover Rs.44,686.40 towards difference of Dearness Allowance from

contractor and same is ordered to be paid with cost of Rs.500/- with

further direction that if contractor fails to pay, workman would be

entitled to recover from principal employer.

4. Against the order, the principal employer and the contractor have filed

the present petitions.

5. Learned Advocate for the petitioners submitted that the petitioners had

acquired the assets and liability of erstwhile S. J. Clear Water Pump Ltd.

with effect from 01-04-2006 and from time to time, the petitioner

Company had engaged the various contractors for providing man power

service. Workman filed application under Section-33(C)(2) of the

Industrial Disputes Act claiming recovery of the difference in accrued

Dearness Allowance and actually paid to him as per the Minimum

Wages Act and difference in bonus payment paid to him.

Page 2 of 13

C/SCA/20094/2017 JUDGMENT DATED: 14/03/2022

6. It is the case of the petitioners that from the documents which were

placed before the Labour Court, relation of the workman that the

petitioners and contractor was established on record, the workman had

received wages, Dearness Allowance including b