Gujarat High Court
Dhoraji Nagarpalika vs Batukbhai Jethabhai Bagada on 9 October, 2025
NEUTRAL CITATION
C/SCA/13063/2025 JUDGMENT DATED: 09/10/2025
undefined
IN THE HIGH COURT OF GUJARAT AT AHMEDABAD
R/SPECIAL CIVIL APPLICATION NO. 13063 of 2025
FOR APPROVAL AND SIGNATURE:
HONOURABLE MRS. JUSTICE M. K. THAKKER
==========================================================
Approved for Reporting Yes No
==========================================================
DHORAJI NAGARPALIKA
Versus
BATUKBHAI JETHABHAI BAGADA
==========================================================
Appearance:
MR.PRATIK KHUBCHANDANI with MR DEEP D VYAS(3869) for the
Petitioner(s) No. 1
==========================================================
CORAM:HONOURABLE MRS. JUSTICE M. K. THAKKER
Date : 09/10/2025
ORAL JUDGMENT
1. The present petition has been filed to challenge the order passed by the learned Labour Court, Rajkot, in Recovery Application No. 34 of 2018, whereby the petitioner has been directed to pay the outstanding wages amounting to Rs. 2,59,613/-, along with the cost of the award assessed at Rs. 2,001/- and interest at the rate of 6% per annum from the date of filing of the Page 1 of 10 Uploaded by MRS. NIVYA ABHAY NAIR(HC01901) on Fri Oct 10 2025 Downloaded on : Sat Oct 11 12:35:11 IST 2025 NEUTRAL CITATION C/SCA/13063/2025 JUDGMENT DATED: 09/10/2025 undefined application, i.e., 02.06.2018.
2. It is the case of the present petitioner that the respondent was employed as a Sweeper with the petitioner-Nagarpalika since 01.02.1997. His services were allegedly terminated on 10.02.2000. The said termination was challenged by the respondent by raising an industrial dispute, which came to be referred to the learned Labour Court, Rajkot, as Reference (LCR) No. 246 of 2009. The Labour Court, vide award dated 31.03.2016, allowed the reference in favour of the respondent and directed the petitioner to reinstate the respondent with 40% back wages and costs of Rs. 2,001/-. Upon publication of the award on 07.04.2016, the respondent approached the petitioner-Nagarpalika for resumption of duty on 26.04.2016. However, the respondent was not permitted to join duty. Thereafter, claiming unpaid wages under the Minimum Wages Act from 07.05.2016 i.e., upon completion of 30 days from the date of publication of the award the respondent initiated recovery proceedings under Section 33(C)(2) of the Industrial Disputes Act, 1947(hereinafter referred to as the "ID Act"), on 02.06.2018, seeking recovery of 24 Page 2 of 10 Uploaded by MRS. NIVYA ABHAY NAIR(HC01901) on Fri Oct 10 2025 Downloaded on : Sat Oct 11 12:35:11 IST 2025 NEUTRAL CITATION C/SCA/13063/2025 JUDGMENT DATED: 09/10/2025 undefined months' unpaid wages. The learned Labour Court allowed the said application and directed the petitioner to pay the outstanding amount along with interest. Aggrieved by the grant of interest, the petitioner has preferred the present petition
3. Heard, learned advocate Mr. Pratik Khubchandani for the petitioner.
4. Learned Advocate Mr. Khubchandani has submitted that the proceedings initiated under Section 33(C)(2) of the ID Act, are not maintainable in the present case, as the said provision operates in the nature of an executing court. It is further submitted that the award passed by the learned Labour Court was challenged by way of Special Civil Application No. 18510 of 2016 along with allied matters before this Court, wherein the award granting 40% back wages was quashed. Learned advocate Mr. Khubchandani has further contended that there exists no pre-existing right with respect to the claim for interest, and hence, the learned Labour Court exceeded its jurisdiction in awarding interest at the rate of 6% per annum. In support of this submission, he has relied upon the judgment of this Court rendered in Page 3 of 10 Uploaded by MRS. NIVYA ABHAY NAIR(HC01901) on Fri Oct 10 2025 Downloaded on : Sat Oct 11 12:35:11 IST 2025 NEUTRAL CITATION C/SCA/13063/2025 JUDGMENT DATED: 09/10/2025 undefined Special Civil Application No. 14634 of 2019, wherein it was held that any additional monetary claim beyond the scope of a pre-existing right falls outside the purview of Section 33(C)(2) of the of the ID Act. Therefore, the impugned order, to the extent it grants interest, is liable to be quashed and set aside. Learned advocate Mr. Khubchandani has also placed reliance on the judgment of the Apex Court in the case of Municipal Corporation of Delhi v. Ganesh Razak & Anr., reported in (1995) 1 SCC 235, wherein it was held that the jurisdiction under Section 33(C)(2) of the ID Act is akin to that of an executing court, and it does not extend to adjudication of disputes pertaining to entitlement or the basis of the workman's claim. The provision merely enables interpretation of an existing award or settlement. Without prior adjudication or recognition of the dispute, claim of workman cannot be entertained and therefore, it is prayed to allow the petition by setting aside the impugned order. Learned advocate Mr. Khubchandani has also referred to a judgment delivered by the Hon'ble Allahabad High Court in a similar factual matrix, where the Hon'ble Allahabad High Court has set Page 4 of 10 Uploaded by MRS. NIVYA ABHAY NAIR(HC01901) on Fri Oct 10 2025 Downloaded on : Sat Oct 11 12:35:11 IST 2025 NEUTRAL CITATION C/SCA/13063/2025 JUDGMENT DATED: 09/10/2025 undefined aside the order passed by the learned Labour Court, Agra granting interest at the rate of 18%. In view of the above submissions, learned Advocate Mr. Khubchandani prays that considering the overall facts, the impugned order deserves to be interfered with by allowing the petition filed by the present petitioner.
5. Upon consideration of the submissions advanced by the learned advocate and upon perusal of the records, it emerges that an application under Section 33(C)(2) of the ID Act was filed on 02.06.2018, seeking recovery of unpaid wages for the period from 07.05.2016 to 31.05.2018. The claim is premised on the contention that, pursuant to the award passed by the learned Labour Court on 31.03.2016 directing reinstatement, and upon publication of the said award on 07.05.2016, the respondent became entitled to wages upon the completion of 30 days from the date of publication of the award, i.e., from 07.06.2016 onwards. It was further alleged that although the respondent reported for duty on 26.04.2016, the petitioner failed to permit him to resume work. As a result, the respondent sought recovery of unpaid wages amounting to Rs.2,59,613.13/- Page 5 of 10 Uploaded by MRS. NIVYA ABHAY NAIR(HC01901) on Fri Oct 10 2025 Downloaded on : Sat Oct 11 12:35:11 IST 2025
NEUTRAL CITATION C/SCA/13063/2025 JUDGMENT DATED: 09/10/2025 undefined along with interest at the rate of 9% per annum. In support of his claim, the respondent placed on record a detailed calculation sheet reflecting the applicable minimum wages during the relevant period and the benefits flowing from the award, which had attained finality in his favour. It is an undisputed fact that the writ petition filed by the petitioner challenging the said award was partly allowed, and the portion of the award granting 40% back wages was quashed directing the petitioner to reinstate the respondent within a period of four weeks from the date of receipt of the order, i.e., 21 December 2017, however, the facts remain that the respondent was not reinstated within the time stipulated by this Court. Significantly, the respondent has not raised any claim in the present recovery proceedings instituted under Section 33(C)(2) of the Industrial Disputes Act, 1947, in respect of the back wages that were set aside this Court. Although in the memo of the present petition, the petitioner has challenged the entire order passed by the learned Labour Court, during the course of arguments, the challenge was confined specifically to the aspect of interest awarded. It is Page 6 of 10 Uploaded by MRS. NIVYA ABHAY NAIR(HC01901) on Fri Oct 10 2025 Downloaded on : Sat Oct 11 12:35:11 IST 2025 NEUTRAL CITATION C/SCA/13063/2025 JUDGMENT DATED: 09/10/2025 undefined pertinent to note that the claim itself pertains to unpaid wages as per the applicable minimum wages, and therefore, the petitioner has rightly restricted its challenge to the issue of interest alone. It is further submitted that the mechanism provided under Section 33(C) of the ID Act is in the nature of execution proceedings, either under sub-section (1), which pertains to recovery of amounts quantified in an award or settlement, or under sub-section (2), which permits a workman to claim any money or benefit capable of being computed in terms of money from the employer. Thus, the scope of adjudication under Section 33(C)(2) of the ID Act does not extend to disputes involving new entitlements, including the grant of interest, unless such right is pre-existing or flows directly from the award or settlement .
5.1. It is submitted that the provisions of Section 33(C)(2) of the ID Act, do not expressly provide for the grant of interest. In support of this contention, reliance is placed on a judgment of the Hon'ble Allahabad High Court, wherein the dispute pertained to payment of pensionary benefits, which the learned Labour Court had directed to Page 7 of 10 Uploaded by MRS. NIVYA ABHAY NAIR(HC01901) on Fri Oct 10 2025 Downloaded on : Sat Oct 11 12:35:11 IST 2025 NEUTRAL CITATION C/SCA/13063/2025 JUDGMENT DATED: 09/10/2025 undefined be paid along with interest at the rate of 18%. On referring the said decision, on attributing the delay to the employee in that case, the Bench set aside the order to the extent it awarded interest, holding that such grant was beyond the scope of Section 33(C)(2). However, the facts of the present case are materially different. Here, the respondent reported for duty promptly on 26.04.2016, immediately after the publication of the award on 07.04.2016. Despite this, the petitioner failed to permit the respondent to resume duty. Therefore, the delay in compliance with the award cannot be attributed to the respondent. This Court has also referred to the judgment rendered in Special Civil Application No. 9560 of 2017, wherein, while allowing the respondent's claim for interest, it was observed that in a contract of employment, the obligation to pay salary as and when it falls due is implied. Consequently, for wrongful withholding of such payments, interest at a reasonable rate ought to be awarded. The said judgment was carried in appeal before the Division Bench in Letters Patent Appeal No. 747 of 2021, where the Division Bench did not interfere with the order passed by the Page 8 of 10 Uploaded by MRS. NIVYA ABHAY NAIR(HC01901) on Fri Oct 10 2025 Downloaded on : Sat Oct 11 12:35:11 IST 2025 NEUTRAL CITATION C/SCA/13063/2025 JUDGMENT DATED: 09/10/2025 undefined learned Single Judge in the said Special Civil Application. The appeal was ultimately disposed of by way of a consensual order granting a lump sum amount towards full and final settlement. Further, this Court has placed reliance on the judgment of the Hon'ble Delhi High Court in Life Insurance Corporation of India v. Union of India, rendered in Civil Writ No. 1543 of 1989, wherein it was held that even if interest is not awarded by the learned Labour Court in an application under Section 33(C)(2) of the ID Act, such relief may be granted in exercise of writ jurisdiction under Article 226 of the Constitution of India, and interference with such direction is not warranted.
5.2. This court has also relied on the decision rendered by Apex court, in the case of Mahadeolal Kanodia Versus The Administrator General Of West Bengal reported in AIR 1960 SC 936, wherein it is held that a single judge differing from decision of another single judge in a previous question is a question of law, wherein it is held that judicial decorum no less than legal propriety forms the basis of judicial procedure. It is the quality of certainty, and that quality would totally disappear, if Page 9 of 10 Uploaded by MRS. NIVYA ABHAY NAIR(HC01901) on Fri Oct 10 2025 Downloaded on : Sat Oct 11 12:35:11 IST 2025 NEUTRAL CITATION C/SCA/13063/2025 JUDGMENT DATED: 09/10/2025 undefined judges of coordinate jurisdiction in High Court, start overruling one another's decision.
6. In light of the above principles and the facts of the present case, this Court does not find it appropriate to interfere with the order passed by the learned Labour Court granting interest at the rate of 6% per annum from the date of the application .
7. Resultantly, this petition being devoid of merits is dismissed.
(M. K. THAKKER,J) NIVYA A. NAIR Page 10 of 10 Uploaded by MRS. NIVYA ABHAY NAIR(HC01901) on Fri Oct 10 2025 Downloaded on : Sat Oct 11 12:35:11 IST 2025