C/SCA/18939/2018 ORDER DATED: 13/03/2023
IN THE HIGH COURT OF GUJARAT AT AHMEDABAD
R/SPECIAL CIVIL APPLICATION NO. 18939 of 2018
==========================================================
PRESIDENT / CHAIRMAN ATLAS COPCO (I) LIMITED
Versus
SHYAMSUNDER JAGDISHCHANDRA VERMA & 1 other(s)
==========================================================
Appearance:
MR SUDHIR NANAVATI, SENIOR ADVOCATE FOR NANAVATI &
NANAVATI(1933) for the Petitioner(s) No. 1
MR P C CHAUDHARI(5770) for the Respondent(s) No. 1
NOTICE SERVED BY DS for the Respondent(s) No. 3
UNSERVED REFUSED (N) for the Respondent(s) No. 2
==========================================================
CORAM:HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE ANIRUDDHA P. MAYEE
Date : 13/03/2023
ORAL ORDER
1. The present Special Civil Application impugns the judgment and order dated 27.09.2018 below Exhibit 32 in Recovery No.369 of 2007 whereby the present petitioner has been joined as a party to the recovery proceedings before the Labour Court, Ahmedabad.
2. In the Recovery Application No.369 of 2007, the petitioner herein came to be named as a party respondent along with respondent No.2 herein by the respondent- workman. By the order dated 05.10.2009, the Presiding Page 1 of 6 Downloaded on : Wed Mar 15 20:37:58 IST 2023 C/SCA/18939/2018 ORDER DATED: 13/03/2023 Officer, Labour Court, Ahmedabad passed an order for recovery against respondent No.2 as well as the petitioner herein. Thereafter, an application came to be made jointly on behalf of the respondent No.2 as well as the petitioner herein for recalling of the said order dated 05.10.2009 under Rule 26A of the Industrial Disputes (Gujarat) Rules, 1996. By order dated 22.10.2013, the said application under Rule 26A came to be allowed and the order dated 05.10.2009 came to be recalled by the learned Labour Court. Thereafter, the respondent workman moved an application under Exhibit 32 for joining the petitioner herein as a party respondent to the recovery proceedings which came to be allowed the impugned order.
3. Mr.Sudhir Nanavati, learned Senior Advocate appearing on behalf of Nanavati & Nanavati for the petitioner submits that the impugned order has been passed without taking into account the factual details and only on the averment that respondent No.2 Company was taken over by the petitioner Company herein. He submits Page 2 of 6 Downloaded on : Wed Mar 15 20:37:58 IST 2023 C/SCA/18939/2018 ORDER DATED: 13/03/2023 that such a fact is not correct and the learned Labour Court has not properly appreciated the contentions raised while joining the petitioner as a party respondent to the recovery proceedings. He, therefore, submits that the present impugned order be set aside and the petitioner may be permitted to adduce evidence and necessary documents to show that the respondent No.2 Company has not been taken over by the petitioner.
4. Per contra, Mr.P.C. Chaudhari, learned advocate for the respondent submits that as per the information available on the petitioner company's website, the petitioner has acquired respondent No.2 Company herein. He submits that such information has been downloaded and produced on record from the website of the petitioner company itself. He, therefore, submits that no error has been committed while passing an order for joining the petitioner as a necessary party to the recovery proceedings. He, therefore, submits that in the recovery proceedings, evidence is yet to be led, and therefore, the opportunity is available to the Page 3 of 6 Downloaded on : Wed Mar 15 20:37:58 IST 2023 C/SCA/18939/2018 ORDER DATED: 13/03/2023 petitioner to dispute its liability.
5. Heard learned counsel for the parties and perused the documents on record.
6. In the present case, by the impugned order, the petitioner has been joined as a party respondent to the recovery proceedings. Learned Labour Court relying on the documents produced before it as well as considering the arguments of the parties has prima facie come to the conclusion that the petitioner is a necessary party to the recovery proceedings. However, with respect to the question of liability, the same is yet to be decided in the recovery proceedings which are pending before the learned Labour Court.
7. In the interest of justice, this court is of the opinion that the petitioner as well as the respondent workman are permitted to place on record the evidence in support of their contentions. Both the parties shall be at liberty to raise all Page 4 of 6 Downloaded on : Wed Mar 15 20:37:58 IST 2023 C/SCA/18939/2018 ORDER DATED: 13/03/2023 the contentions as available to them in law. Thereafter, the learned Labour Court after hearing all the parties may decide the question of liability in respect of the petitioner Company. In case, the Labour Court comes to the conclusion that the petitioner Company is not liable in respect of the recovery proceedings pending before it, the present impugned order shall stand merged in the final order passed in the recovery proceedings and the petitioner Company shall stand deleted as party respondent in the recovery proceedings before the Labour Court.
8. The learned Labour Court is directed to dispose of the Recovery Application on or before 30 th September, 2023. All the parties are directed to cooperate to the speedy disposal of the recovery proceedings. It is made clear that this Court has not gone into the merits of the case and no observation is made on the merits. The Labour Court shall decide the issue of liability of the petitioner herein on its own merits in accordance with law.
Page 5 of 6 Downloaded on : Wed Mar 15 20:37:58 IST 2023
C/SCA/18939/2018 ORDER DATED: 13/03/2023 Accordingly the Special Civil Application stands disposed of. No order as to costs.
(ANIRUDDHA P. MAYEE, J.) ALI Page 6 of 6 Downloaded on : Wed Mar 15 20:37:58 IST 2023