Gujarat High Court
Vimalkumar Bharatbhai Malam vs Tata Chemicals Limited on 11 July, 2025
NEUTRAL CITATION
C/SCA/4284/2023 JUDGMENT DATED: 11/07/2025
undefined
IN THE HIGH COURT OF GUJARAT AT AHMEDABAD
R/SPECIAL CIVIL APPLICATION NO. 4284 of 2023
FOR APPROVAL AND SIGNATURE:
HONOURABLE MRS. JUSTICE M. K. THAKKER
==========================================================
Approved for Reporting Yes No
✔
==========================================================
VIMALKUMAR BHARATBHAI MALAM
Versus
TATA CHEMICALS LIMITED & ORS.
==========================================================
Appearance:
MR UT MISHRA(3605) for the Petitioner(s) No. 1
NOTICE SERVED for the Respondent(s) No. 1,4
NOTICE THROUGH RPAD UNSERVED for the Respondent(s) No. 2,3
==========================================================
CORAM:HONOURABLE MRS. JUSTICE M. K. THAKKER
Date : 11/07/2025
ORAL JUDGMENT
1. Endorsement on the cause list indicates that notice has been served upon respondent Nos. 1 and 4; however, none has appeared on their behalf. As regards respondent Nos. 2 and 3, the notice sent through RPAD has remained unserved, as the postal cover was returned with the remark "insufficient address".
2. The present petition has been filed by the petitioner challenging the order dated 23.03.2022 passed in Page 1 of 6 Uploaded by MRS. NIVYA ABHAY NAIR(HC01901) on Mon Jul 14 2025 Downloaded on : Mon Jul 14 22:24:40 IST 2025 NEUTRAL CITATION C/SCA/4284/2023 JUDGMENT DATED: 11/07/2025 undefined Recovery C-1 Application No. 6 of 2020, whereby the learned Labour Court, while directing respondent No.1 to file an affidavit clarifying whether the security of respondent Nos. 2 and 3 is lying with him, further held that in the absence of such an affidavit, the petitioner shall be entitled to proceed under Section 33C(1) of the Industrial Disputes Act, 1947 (hereinafter referred to as the "ID Act") to initiate proceedings under the provisions of the Land Revenue Code, 1879.
3. It is the case of the petitioner that the reference filed challenging the order of termination was decided in favour of the petitioner by an award dated 30.11.2019, passed in Reference No. 82 of 2012. By the said award, the learned Labour Court directed respondent Nos. 2 and 3 to pay lump sum compensation of ₹75,000/- to the petitioner in lieu of reinstatement and other benefits. It was further directed that, in case of failure on the part of respondent Nos. 2 and 3 to make such payment, respondent No.1 shall pay the said amount from the security deposit of respondent Nos. 2 and 3. As respondent Nos. 2 and 3 failed to comply with the award, the petitioner initiated proceedings under Page 2 of 6 Uploaded by MRS. NIVYA ABHAY NAIR(HC01901) on Mon Jul 14 2025 Downloaded on : Mon Jul 14 22:24:40 IST 2025 NEUTRAL CITATION C/SCA/4284/2023 JUDGMENT DATED: 11/07/2025 undefined Section 33C(1) of the Industrial Disputes Act by filing Application No. 6 of 2020. In those proceedings, the learned Labour Court directed respondent No.1 to file an affidavit clarifying the status of the security deposit of respondent Nos. 2 and 3. It was further observed that, in the absence of such an affidavit, the petitioner would be entitled to initiate recovery proceedings under the Land Revenue Code. The said order is the subject matter of challenge in the present petition.
4. Heard learned advocate Mr.U.T.Mishra for the petitioner and as observed above, though respondent has been served, no one has appeared.
4.1. Learned advocate Mr.Mishra submits that as the directions issued in the reference being reference No.82 of 2012 was not complied with, the recovery application was filed, wherein though the learned court has observed that the petitioner would be entitled to recover the amount through the Gujarat Land Revenue Code however, has disposed of the application instead of issuing the recovery certificate. Learned advocate Mr.Mishra submits that, in the absence of any pending proceedings, the petitioner is left without an effective Page 3 of 6 Uploaded by MRS. NIVYA ABHAY NAIR(HC01901) on Mon Jul 14 2025 Downloaded on : Mon Jul 14 22:24:40 IST 2025 NEUTRAL CITATION C/SCA/4284/2023 JUDGMENT DATED: 11/07/2025 undefined remedy to obtain a recovery certificate for the implementation of the award. In view of the aforesaid facts and circumstances, learned advocate Mr. Mishra prays that the present petition be allowed and the learned Labour Court be directed to issue the necessary recovery certificate in accordance with law.
5. Having considered the arguments advanced by the learned advocate, it emerges that learned reference court has awarded the reference being No.82 of 2012 in favour of the present petitioner by issuing the following directions:-
"1. This Reference is partly allowed.
2. The Respondents No. 1 and 2 of this case shall pay lump-
sum amount of Rs. 75,000/- as compensation in lieu of reinstatement to the Applicant of this application within 30 days from the publication of this award.
3. Further, the Respondent No. 3 of this case is hereby ordered that if the Respondent No. 1 and 2 fail to make payment of the above mentioned amount within 30 days from the publication of this award, procedure shall be undertaken to make payment of above mentioned lump- sum amount of Rs. 75,000/- and Rs. 5,000/- as cost of this application to the Applicant from the Security Deposit of Respondent No. 1 and 2 deposited with the Respondent No. 3.
3. The Respondent No. 1 and 2 shall pay Rs. 5,000/- to the Page 4 of 6 Uploaded by MRS. NIVYA ABHAY NAIR(HC01901) on Mon Jul 14 2025 Downloaded on : Mon Jul 14 22:24:40 IST 2025 NEUTRAL CITATION C/SCA/4284/2023 JUDGMENT DATED: 11/07/2025 undefined Applicant as cost of this application. The Respondents shall bear their own cost."
6. As the directions issued by the learned labour court has not been complied with, therefore, the proceedings were initiated under section 33 C (1) of the ID Act by filing the Recovery Application being No.6 of 2020. It emerges that, in the said recovery application, the learned Labour Court directed respondent No.1 to file an affidavit clarifying the aspect of the security deposit. In the operative portion of the order, it was further observed that, in the absence of such an affidavit, the petitioner would be entitled to initiate recovery proceedings. This Court is of the view that, having issued such directions, the learned Labour Court ought to have proceeded to issue a recovery certificate. Instead, the petitioner was merely left with the liberty to initiate recovery proceedings which, in fact, had already been initiated by filing Recovery Application No. 6 of 2020. In this background, the petition deserves to be allowed. The Recovery Application No. 6 of 2020 is required to be reconsidered and decided afresh by the learned Labour Court, with specific directions issued in favour of the Page 5 of 6 Uploaded by MRS. NIVYA ABHAY NAIR(HC01901) on Mon Jul 14 2025 Downloaded on : Mon Jul 14 22:24:40 IST 2025 NEUTRAL CITATION C/SCA/4284/2023 JUDGMENT DATED: 11/07/2025 undefined petitioner, in accordance with law.
7. Resultantly, this petition is allowed with the above directions.
(M. K. THAKKER,J) NIVYA A. NAIR Page 6 of 6 Uploaded by MRS. NIVYA ABHAY NAIR(HC01901) on Mon Jul 14 2025 Downloaded on : Mon Jul 14 22:24:40 IST 2025