Gujarat High Court
Bhupendra @ Bhailalbhai Narsinhbhai ... vs Hotel Surya on 15 April, 2025
NEUTRAL CITATION
C/SCA/20338/2023 JUDGMENT DATED: 15/04/2025
undefined
IN THE HIGH COURT OF GUJARAT AT AHMEDABAD
R/SPECIAL CIVIL APPLICATION NO. 20338 of 2023
FOR APPROVAL AND SIGNATURE:
HONOURABLE MRS. JUSTICE M. K. THAKKER
==========================================================
Approved for Reporting Yes No
NO
==========================================================
BHUPENDRA @ BHAILALBHAI NARSINHBHAI PARMAR
Versus
HOTEL SURYA & ANR.
==========================================================
Appearance:
ROBIN PRASAD(9344) for the Petitioner(s) No. 1
MR DG SHUKLA(1998) for the Respondent(s) No. 1
MR HARSHEEL D SHUKLA(6158) for the Respondent(s) No. 1
NOTICE SERVED for the Respondent(s) No. 2
==========================================================
CORAM:HONOURABLE MRS. JUSTICE M. K. THAKKER
Date : 15/04/2025
ORAL JUDGMENT
1. Rule, returnable forthwith. Learned advocate Mr.Shukla waives service of notice of Rule on behalf of the respondent No.1.
2. This petition is filed challenging the order passed by the learned labour Court, Vadodara in Recovery (C-2) Application No.634 of 2014, filed by the present petitioner under Section 33C(2) of the Industrial Disputes Act, 1947 ('the I.D.Act' referred hereinafter) for the Page 1 of 7 Uploaded by M.M.MIRZA(HC01407) on Fri Apr 25 2025 Downloaded on : Sat May 03 07:15:25 IST 2025 NEUTRAL CITATION C/SCA/20338/2023 JUDGMENT DATED: 15/04/2025 undefined recovery of the dues of Rs.1,70,331/- towards wages for the period from February 2012 to September 2014, as per the award passed by the learned labour Court in Reference (LCB) No.802 of 1999 dated 19.05.2007.
3. It is the case of the petitioner that he was employed with the respondent hotel as a liftman on 16.06.1992 and getting the monthly wages of Rs.1570/-. The petitioner was terminated from service on 04.07.1998, which was challenged by filing the Reference (LCB) No.802 of 1999 before the learned labour Court. The learned labour Court has awarded the Reference in favour of the present petitioner on 19.05.2007 granting the relief of reinstatement with continuity of service and with 30% back wages. As the award was not implemented, the petitioner filed Recovery Application No.60 of 2007 for recovery of 20% back wages for the period from 04.07.1998 to 19.05.2007. The labour Court allowed the application on 01.10.2010 and directed the respondent- hotel to pay the amount of Rs.34,720/-.
3.1. Thereafter, another recovery application, being Recovery (C-2) Application No.71 of 2009, was filed for the period from August 2007 to February 2009. That application was also allowed in favour of the petitioner on 19.05.2007, directing the respondent to pay ₹53,351/- along with interest at the rate of 9%.
3.2. The petitioner thereafter filed another application, being Recovery (C-2) Application No.62 of 2012, for Page 2 of 7 Uploaded by M.M.MIRZA(HC01407) on Fri Apr 25 2025 Downloaded on : Sat May 03 07:15:25 IST 2025 NEUTRAL CITATION C/SCA/20338/2023 JUDGMENT DATED: 15/04/2025 undefined recovery of wages for the period from 01.03.2009 to 31.01.2012. The said application was allowed in favour of the petitioner by order dated 09.02.2016, directing the respondent hotel to pay an amount of ₹1,44,136.20/-. The respondent hotel challenged the aforesaid order by filing a writ petition, being Special Civil Application No.19877 of 2016, which came to be rejected by this Court on 15.10.2018.
3.3. Another recovery application was filed under Section 33C(1) of the I.D. Act, being Recovery Application No.633 of 2014, for unpaid wages for the period from March 2009 to November 2014. By order dated 02.03.2016, the learned Labour Court directed the respondent to pay an amount of ₹80,934/- along with interest at the rate of 9%. However, the respondent paid only ₹70,000/-, which was readily accepted by the present petitioner.
3.4. Another recovery application, being Recovery C2 Application No.634 of 2014, came to be filed for wages for the period between February 2012 and September 2014, which came to be rejected by the learned Labour Court on 18.05.2022, which is subject matter of challenge before this Court.
4. Heard the learned advocate Mr.Robin Prasad for the petitioner and leaned advocate Mr.D.G.Shukla for the respondent.
Page 3 of 7 Uploaded by M.M.MIRZA(HC01407) on Fri Apr 25 2025 Downloaded on : Sat May 03 07:15:25 IST 2025NEUTRAL CITATION C/SCA/20338/2023 JUDGMENT DATED: 15/04/2025 undefined
5. Learned advocate Mr. Robin Prasad submits that the learned Labour Court has committed an error in relying on the communication addressed by the respondent offering employment to the present petitioner, as the learned Labour Court cannot examine the aspect of whether the petitioner actually resumed duty or not. The function of the Labour Court is limited to executing the order passed earlier and to assess the claim of the present petitioner-workman in light of the directions issued in the award. Learned advocate Mr. Robin Prasad further submits that even after rejoining service, the petitioner was again terminated, and the said termination was challenged before the learned Labour Court by filing a separate Reference, being Reference (LCV) No.244 of 2017, wherein the learned Labour Court passed an award dated 03.03.2025, granting a lump sum compensation of Rs.1,00,000/- instead of directing reinstatement with back wages.
5.1. Learned advocate Mr. Robin Prasad submits that the learned Labour Court has committed an error by delving into disputed facts and rejecting the application filed by the petitioner.
6. Per contra, learned advocate Mr. Shukla draws the attention of this Court to the evidence placed before the learned Labour Court, particularly marks 13/1, 13/2, 13/3, and 13/4. Learned advocate Mr. Shukla submits that after Page 4 of 7 Uploaded by M.M.MIRZA(HC01407) on Fri Apr 25 2025 Downloaded on : Sat May 03 07:15:25 IST 2025 NEUTRAL CITATION C/SCA/20338/2023 JUDGMENT DATED: 15/04/2025 undefined the order passed in the previous recovery application, the respondent was called for employment; however, the respondent did not respond to the said communication and, therefore, he is not entitled to any relief from the learned Labour Court. Learned advocate Mr. Shukla also relies on the award passed by the learned Labour Court in the subsequent Reference being Reference (LCV) No.244 of 2017, and submits that in that order, the learned Labour Court has observed the conduct of the present petitioner, who remained on leave after resuming duty.
6.1. Learned advocate Mr. Shukla submits that, as per the instructions issued by the respondent, the compensation of Rs.1 Lakh, which was ordered by the learned Labour Court, will be paid to the petitioner. In addition to that,an amount of Rs. 3,02,207.20/- has already been paid in compliance with the various directions issued in the recovery application. Learned advocate Mr. Shukla further submits that, for the tenure of six years of service, the respondent has received more than Rs.4 Lakh and despite being called for employment, the respondent did not respond. In light of these facts, the learned Labour Court was justified in dismissing the Recovery Application, and therefore, no interference is required.
7. Having considered the arguments advanced by the learned advocates for the respective parties, it emerges Page 5 of 7 Uploaded by M.M.MIRZA(HC01407) on Fri Apr 25 2025 Downloaded on : Sat May 03 07:15:25 IST 2025 NEUTRAL CITATION C/SCA/20338/2023 JUDGMENT DATED: 15/04/2025 undefined from the record that the claim of the present petitioner before the learned Labour Court in Reference No. 802 of 1999 was that he had been serving with the respondent from 1992 to 1999. The learned Labour Court, while awarding the Reference in favor of the present petitioner, granted the relief of reinstatement along with 20% back wages. It is an undisputed fact that the amount of Rs. 1,44,136/- towards 20% back wages has been paid by the petitioner, and subsequently, various recovery applications have been filed claiming the wages as awarded by the learned Labour Court. As a result, the total amount of Rs. 3,02,207.20/- has been paid to the petitioner by the respondent employer.
7.1. The learned Labour Court has relied on the communication addressed by the respondent- employer, dated 07.03.2012, 21.08.2013, 09.09.2013, and 18.10.2014.It is undisputed by the present petitioner that, despite receiving the aforementioned communications, he did not join duty nor provide any sufficient explanation for his failure to do so. Additionally, the learned Labour Court in Reference (LCV) No. 244 of 2017 relied on the cross-examination of the workman, wherein it was admitted that after resuming duty, he went on unauthorized leave. For this misconduct, the respondent employer issued a communication on 18.06.2016, to which the petitioner responded on 19.08.2016. It is also acknowledged by the present petitioner that the employer sent another Page 6 of 7 Uploaded by M.M.MIRZA(HC01407) on Fri Apr 25 2025 Downloaded on : Sat May 03 07:15:25 IST 2025 NEUTRAL CITATION C/SCA/20338/2023 JUDGMENT DATED: 15/04/2025 undefined communication on 21.09.2016 regarding his unauthorized leave. Observing the said conduct, the learned Labour Court, instead of granting reinstatement, awarded a lump sum compensation of Rs. 1 Lakh in subsequent Reference.
8. This Court is of the view that when the petitioner is not interested in resuming work, he cannot claim the relief relief which was awarded in the Reference. The learned Labour Court in Reference No. 802 of 1999 granted the relief of reinstatement, and the employer communicated with the petitioner to resume duty, which the petitioner failed to do. In that background, this Court is of the view that, considering the petitioner has received a substantial amount exceeding Rs. 4 Lakh from the respondent, and despite the communications received, he did not resume duty, no error has been committed by the learned Labour Court in dismissing the Recovery Application.
9. Resultantly, this petition is dismissed. The impugned order dated 18.05.2022 passed by the learned labour Court No.2 Vadodara in Recovery (C-2) Application No.634 of 2014 is hereby confirmed. Rule is discharged.
(M. K. THAKKER,J) M.M.MIRZA Page 7 of 7 Uploaded by M.M.MIRZA(HC01407) on Fri Apr 25 2025 Downloaded on : Sat May 03 07:15:25 IST 2025