Gujarat High Court
Decd Mafatlal Fatechand Shah Through ... vs Mujkuva Doodh Utpadak Sahakari Mandali ... on 9 September, 2025
NEUTRAL CITATION
C/SCA/12457/2025 JUDGMENT DATED: 09/09/2025
undefined
IN THE HIGH COURT OF GUJARAT AT AHMEDABAD
R/SPECIAL CIVIL APPLICATION NO. 12457 of 2025
FOR APPROVAL AND SIGNATURE:
HONOURABLE MRS. JUSTICE M. K. THAKKER
==========================================================
Approved for Reporting Yes No
==========================================================
DECD MAFATLAL FATECHAND SHAH THROUGH AJITKUMAR MAFATLAL
SHAH
Versus
MUJKUVA DOODH UTPADAK SAHAKARI MANDALI LTD. & ANR.
==========================================================
Appearance:
ROBIN PRASAD(9344) for the Petitioner(s) No. 1
==========================================================
CORAM:HONOURABLE MRS. JUSTICE M. K. THAKKER
Date : 09/09/2025
ORAL JUDGMENT
1. The present petition is filed under Articles 226 and 227 of the Constitution of India, challenging the order dated 05.06.2024 passed by the learned Labour Court, Anand, in Recovery Application No. 12 of 2020, filed under Section 33(C)(2) of the Industrial Disputes Act, 1947 (hereinafter referred to as the 'ID Act'), as well as the order dated 17.12.2024 passed in Delay Application No. Page 1 of 5 Uploaded by MRS. NIVYA ABHAY NAIR(HC01901) on Thu Sep 11 2025 Downloaded on : Thu Sep 11 22:50:51 IST 2025 NEUTRAL CITATION C/SCA/12457/2025 JUDGMENT DATED: 09/09/2025 undefined 2 of 2024 in the aforesaid Recovery Application. By the said orders, the learned Labour Court has rejected the claim of the present petitioner for recovery of unpaid provident fund dues.
2. It is the case of the present petitioner that the petitioner's father resigned from service on 31.01.1989. At that time, a sum of ₹24,000/-, lying in his provident fund account, remained unpaid. In order to claim the said amount towards provident fund, gratuity, and overtime allowances, an application under Section 33(C) (2) of the Industrial Disputes Act, 1947, came to be filed on 17.12.2020. Upon adjudication of the claim, the learned Labour Court granted an amount of ₹11,094/- towards the remaining provident fund but without awarding any interest thereon. Subsequently, an application for clarification, along with Delay Application No. 2 of 2024, came to be filed, contending that the learned Court had erred in not awarding interest on the aforesaid amount and that such interest ought to have been granted in favour of the present petitioner. However, the learned Labour Court, vide its order dated 17.12.2024, rejected the said application, which is Page 2 of 5 Uploaded by MRS. NIVYA ABHAY NAIR(HC01901) on Thu Sep 11 2025 Downloaded on : Thu Sep 11 22:50:51 IST 2025 NEUTRAL CITATION C/SCA/12457/2025 JUDGMENT DATED: 09/09/2025 undefined subject matter of challenge before this Court.
3. Heard learned advocate Mr.Robin Prasad for the petitioner.
4. Learned advocate Mr. Prasad submits that, indisputably, the amount lying in the provident fund account of the petitioner's father at the time of his resignation from service on 31.01.1989 was paid only in the year 2024. However, the learned Labour Court, instead of directing payment of the said amount along with interest, has merely directed the respondent to pay the remaining principal amount of ₹11,094/-. It is therefore submitted that the impugned order, to the extent it denies interest on the delayed payment, is erroneous and deserves to be set aside, and the present petition is liable to be allowed.
5. Having considered the submissions advanced by the learned advocate for the petitioner and upon perusal of the record, it emerges that the father of the petitioner resigned from service on 31.01.1989. At that time, a criminal complaint had been lodged against him under Sections 407 and 477A of the Indian Penal Code. Upon his acquittal in the said criminal proceedings, a claim was filed seeking payment of gratuity, overtime wages, Page 3 of 5 Uploaded by MRS. NIVYA ABHAY NAIR(HC01901) on Thu Sep 11 2025 Downloaded on : Thu Sep 11 22:50:51 IST 2025 NEUTRAL CITATION C/SCA/12457/2025 JUDGMENT DATED: 09/09/2025 undefined and provident fund dues. During the pendency of the application filed under Section 33(C)(2) of the Industrial Disputes Act, 1947, the claim towards gratuity was withdrawn. The learned Labour Court, upon adjudication, held that there was no pre-existing right in respect of the claim for overtime wages and, therefore, declined to grant any amount under that head. It is further not in dispute that out of the total provident fund amount of ₹24,000/-, a sum of ₹12,906/- was paid to the father of the petitioner in February 1989, while the remaining amount had been deposited with the Mandli, but was not withdrawn. The application under Section 33(C)(2) came to be filed after a delay of 20 years and 334 days. In view of the said delay, while allowing the application to the limited extent, the learned Labour Court directed the respondent authority to pay only the remaining principal amount of ₹11,094/-, without awarding any interest. This Court is of the considered view that, given the inordinate delay in filing the application, the Labour Court was justified in not awarding interest on the delayed payment. No infirmity is found in the impugned order warranting interference Page 4 of 5 Uploaded by MRS. NIVYA ABHAY NAIR(HC01901) on Thu Sep 11 2025 Downloaded on : Thu Sep 11 22:50:51 IST 2025 NEUTRAL CITATION C/SCA/12457/2025 JUDGMENT DATED: 09/09/2025 undefined in exercise of powers under Articles 226 and 227 of the Constitution of India. Accordingly, the petition deserves to be dismissed.
6. Resultantly, this petition is dismissed.
(M. K. THAKKER,J) NIVYA A. NAIR Page 5 of 5 Uploaded by MRS. NIVYA ABHAY NAIR(HC01901) on Thu Sep 11 2025 Downloaded on : Thu Sep 11 22:50:51 IST 2025