Gujarat High Court
Vijaykumar Shivdarshan Verma vs Krishnaram Dying And Finishing Works on 30 April, 2025
NEUTRAL CITATION
C/SCA/5915/2024 JUDGMENT DATED: 30/04/2025
undefined
IN THE HIGH COURT OF GUJARAT AT AHMEDABAD
R/SPECIAL CIVIL APPLICATION NO. 5915 of 2024
FOR APPROVAL AND SIGNATURE:
HONOURABLE MRS. JUSTICE M. K. THAKKER
==========================================================
Approved for Reporting Yes No
==========================================================
VIJAYKUMAR SHIVDARSHAN VERMA & ORS.
Versus
KRISHNARAM DYING AND FINISHING WORKS & ORS.
==========================================================
Appearance:
MR UT MISHRA(3605) for the Petitioner(s) No. 1,10,2,3,4,5,6,7,8,9
MR DIPAK R DAVE(1232) for the Respondent(s) No. 3,4
NOTICE SERVED for the Respondent(s) No. 1,2
==========================================================
CORAM:HONOURABLE MRS. JUSTICE M. K. THAKKER
Date : 30/04/2025
ORAL JUDGMENT
1. This petition is filed under Article 226 and 227 of the Constitution of India, challenging the order passed by the learned Authority under the Payment of Wages Act, 1936 passed below Exh.44 dated 19.04.2023 by which the application preferred by the present petitioner for appointment of the Court Commissioner or to direct the respondent to deposit the legal dues of the petitioner, Page 1 of 8 Uploaded by MRS. NIVYA ABHAY NAIR(HC01901) on Wed May 07 2025 Downloaded on : Wed May 07 21:47:51 IST 2025 NEUTRAL CITATION C/SCA/5915/2024 JUDGMENT DATED: 30/04/2025 undefined came to be rejected.
2. It is the case of the petitioner that the petitioners were serving with the respondent Authority from the year 2000 on the post of Operator, Painter, Borderman etc. in the Printing Department and the respondent Authority had closed down the establishment and accordingly the petitioners were not allowed to resume the duty from 24.02.2009 and the amount under the Act like notice pay, gratuity, retrenchment compensation, due bonus etc. were not paid. Therefore, the application is filed under the Payment of Wages Act being Wage Application No.369 of 2011 under section 17(A) of the Payment of Wages Act seeking direction against the respondent employer. During the pendency of the dispute the application came to be filed seeking direction against the respondent employer not to sell the property of the establishment till the application is heard and decided by the Payment of Wage Authority-labour court. The learned court, after hearing both the parties has passed interim order below Exh.2 dated 12.12.2017, whereby the application filed by the petitioner was partly allowed and respondent employer was directed not to sell the Page 2 of 8 Uploaded by MRS. NIVYA ABHAY NAIR(HC01901) on Wed May 07 2025 Downloaded on : Wed May 07 21:47:51 IST 2025 NEUTRAL CITATION C/SCA/5915/2024 JUDGMENT DATED: 30/04/2025 undefined property and machineries which are installed in the respondent establishment as well as to maintain the status quo till the application is heard and decided by the Court.
2.1. The Wage Application being 369 of 2011 was heard and was kept for arguments in the year 2020 and at that stage, other application came to be filed by the present petitioner alleging that despite the status quo order was granted with regard to the property in question, the respondent employer is disposing of the entire property of the establishment. By filing the application below Exh.44, request was made for appointment of the Commissioner which was turned down by the learned labour court and the same is the subject matter of challenge before this Court.
3. Heard learned advocate Mr.U.T.Mishra for the petitioner and learned advocate Mr.Dipak Dave for the respondent.
4. Learned advocate Mr.Mishra submits that as per the information received dated 14.06.2023, it was informed that at present there is no production process going on in the factory and no machineries are lying with the factory. Learned advocate Mr.Mishra submits that on Page 3 of 8 Uploaded by MRS. NIVYA ABHAY NAIR(HC01901) on Wed May 07 2025 Downloaded on : Wed May 07 21:47:51 IST 2025 NEUTRAL CITATION C/SCA/5915/2024 JUDGMENT DATED: 30/04/2025 undefined receiving the said information, a complaint came to be filed before the labour Commissioner alleging that the respondent employer has flouted the orders and therefore, Court Commissioner is required to be appointed. However, instead of ascertaining the facts through the Court Commissioner, learned labour court has rejected the application and therefore, same is required to be set aside by allowing the application filed below Exh.44.
5. As against the same, learned advocate Mr.Dave submits that the stage of the Wage Application filed under the Payment of Wages Act being No.369 of 2011 is of argument since the year 2020. It is submitted by the learned advocate Mr.Dave that on being terminated on 24.02.2009, after the delay of two years in the year July, 2011, the Wage Application was filed. It is further submitted by the learned advocate Mr.Dave that the earlier Wage Application whcih is filed being the Payment of Wage Application No.164 of 2008 was withdrawn and thereafter, the present Wage Application was filed though other Union. Learned advocate Mr.Dave submits that the closing pursis came to be filed Page 4 of 8 Uploaded by MRS. NIVYA ABHAY NAIR(HC01901) on Wed May 07 2025 Downloaded on : Wed May 07 21:47:51 IST 2025 NEUTRAL CITATION C/SCA/5915/2024 JUDGMENT DATED: 30/04/2025 undefined by the petitioner on 02.01.2020 below Exh.42 and thereafter, though the matter was placed on board, on various dates, however, instead of completing the arguments the petitioner is trying to delay the proceedings. Learned advocate Mr.Dave submits that the present appreciation filed below Exh.44 is also filed after two years of filing of the closing pursis and the same was after changing the Union who earlier filed the application before the learned labour court. 5.1. Learned advocate Mr.Dave submits that as the petitioner does not have a good case on merits, instead of concluding the proceedings he is filing the application one after the other, so that no final order can be passed. Learned advocate Mr.Dave submits that after assigning detailed reasons the learned labour court under the Payment of Wages Authority Act has passed the impugned order, therefore, no interference is required and the petition is required to be dismissed.
6. Having considered the arguments advanced by learned advocates and the reasons assigned by the learned labour court while rejecting the application below Exh.44, it emerges that initially the application filed Page 5 of 8 Uploaded by MRS. NIVYA ABHAY NAIR(HC01901) on Wed May 07 2025 Downloaded on : Wed May 07 21:47:51 IST 2025 NEUTRAL CITATION C/SCA/5915/2024 JUDGMENT DATED: 30/04/2025 undefined below Exh.2 in payment of wages act application No.369 of 2011, learned labour court has granted the status quo vide order dated 12.12.2017. It also emerges from the record that previously, the payment of wages application being No.164 of 2008 came to be filed by 31 employees, however, on withdrawing the same, the present application is filed by 11 employees through different Union. At this stage reference of sub section 2 of the section 15 is required to be made which is reproduced herein below:-
"15. Claims arising out of deductions from wages or delay in payment of wages and penalty for malicious or vexatious claims.
(1) *** (2) Where contrary to the provisions of this Act any deduction has been made from the wages of an employed person, or any payment of wages has been delayed, such person himself, or any legal practitioner or any official of a registered trade union authorised in writing to act on his behalf, or any Inspector under this Act, or any other person acting with the permission of the authority appointed under sub-section (1), may apply to such authority for a direction under sub-section (3):
Provided that every such application shall be presented within 1 [twelve months] from the date on which the deduction from the wages was made or from the date on which the payment of the wages was due to be made, as the case may be:
Provided further that any application may be admitted after the Page 6 of 8 Uploaded by MRS. NIVYA ABHAY NAIR(HC01901) on Wed May 07 2025 Downloaded on : Wed May 07 21:47:51 IST 2025 NEUTRAL CITATION C/SCA/5915/2024 JUDGMENT DATED: 30/04/2025 undefined said period of 1 [twelve months] when the applicant satisfies the authority that he had sufficient cause for not making the application within such period."
7. As per the above provision, application has to be filed within a period of 12 months from the date on which the deduction from the wages was made or from the date on which the payment of wages was due to be made and the second proviso suggests that the Authority on being satisfied that there is a sufficient cause for not making an application within a prescribed period may admit the application after the said period. The learned Authority has observed in the order that the application was filed beyond a period of two years under the Payment of Wages Act as well as the Exh.44 is filed after a period of two years of filing the closing pursis. It emerges from the record that from the year 2020, the case is at the stage of arguments and as informed by the learned advocate for the respondent, as on date also no argument has been concluded under the pretext of pendency of the present petition.
8. This Court is of the view that all the applications, even if they are bonafide or genuine, have to be filed at a proper point of time in the proceedings. The stage of the Page 7 of 8 Uploaded by MRS. NIVYA ABHAY NAIR(HC01901) on Wed May 07 2025 Downloaded on : Wed May 07 21:47:51 IST 2025 NEUTRAL CITATION C/SCA/5915/2024 JUDGMENT DATED: 30/04/2025 undefined proceedings are very important, as from the instant case, it appears that after two years of filing of the closing pursis, the present application is filed. If these type of applications are entertained at the fag end of the trial, the proceedings would get dilated. In that background this Court is of the view that learned labour court is justifying in rejecting the application filed below Exh.44. Hence, the petition deserves to be dismissed as being devoid of merits.
9. As the proceedings are pending since 2011, it would be just and proper to direct the learned labour court, Surat to conclude the proceedings within a period of four months from the date of receipt of this order.
10. Resultantly, this petition being Special Civil Application No.5915 of 2024 is hereby dismissed.
(M. K. THAKKER,J) NIVYA A. NAIR Page 8 of 8 Uploaded by MRS. NIVYA ABHAY NAIR(HC01901) on Wed May 07 2025 Downloaded on : Wed May 07 21:47:51 IST 2025