Gujarat High Court
Agricultural Produce Market ... vs Harshadgiri Mansukhgiri Goswami Heir ... on 12 September, 2025
NEUTRAL CITATION
C/SCA/10150/2025 JUDGMENT DATED: 12/09/2025
undefined
IN THE HIGH COURT OF GUJARAT AT AHMEDABAD
R/SPECIAL CIVIL APPLICATION NO. 10150 of 2025
FOR APPROVAL AND SIGNATURE:
HONOURABLE MRS. JUSTICE M. K. THAKKER
==========================================================
Approved for Reporting Yes No
✔
==========================================================
AGRICULTURAL PRODUCE MARKET COMMITTEE, KALAVAD (SHITLA)
Versus
HARSHADGIRI MANSUKHGIRI GOSWAMI HEIR AND LEGAL
REPRESENTATIVE OF MANSUKHGIRI REVAGIRI GOSWAMI & ANR.
==========================================================
Appearance:
MR DIPAN DESAI(2481) for the Petitioner(s) No. 1
==========================================================
CORAM:HONOURABLE MRS. JUSTICE M. K. THAKKER
Date : 12/09/2025
ORAL JUDGMENT
1. The present petition is filed by the petitioner challenging the order passed by the learned Labour Court while exercising the power under Section 33-C(2) of the Industrial Disputes Act dated 05.05.2025 in Recovery Application No.52 of 2023, whereby the learned Labour Court has directed the present petitioner to pay an amount of Rs.7,00,030/- qua the 5th and 6th Pay Commission recommendations.
2. It is the case of the present petitioner that the petitioner is Page 1 of 7 Uploaded by Vikramsinh Amarsinh(HCW0055) on Thu Sep 18 2025 Downloaded on : Thu Sep 18 22:14:06 IST 2025 NEUTRAL CITATION C/SCA/10150/2025 JUDGMENT DATED: 12/09/2025 undefined an Agricultural Produce Market Committee, Kalavad and the father of the respondent No.1 was working as a Watchman in the Market Committee. The father of respondent No.1 had raised an industrial dispute for regularization of his service, which was preferred to the learned Labour Court, Jamnagar, by registering Reference (LCD) No.04 of 1996. The learned Labour Court has awarded the reference in favour of the father of respondent No.1 on 06.08.2010 and the petitioner - Committee was directed to regularize the service of the father of respondent No.1 along with another employees from 01.01.2005 and to pay the arrears payable to the regular employees within a period of 30 days. Challenging the said award, writ petition came to be filed before this Court being a Special Civil Application No.12387 of 2010, in which this Court has initially granted the stay vide its order dated 12.10.2010. However, the matter was subsequently dismissed for non-prosecution vide its order dated 10.07.2019. After the dismissal of the petition, the respondent No.1 has filed Recovery Application being a Recovery Application No.52 of 2023, seeking the payment of retirement benefits by applying the 5th and 6th Pay Commission recommendations for the period of 01.01.2005 to 31.12.2014 and thereby claiming approximately Rs.7,00,000/-. Page 2 of 7 Uploaded by Vikramsinh Amarsinh(HCW0055) on Thu Sep 18 2025 Downloaded on : Thu Sep 18 22:14:06 IST 2025
NEUTRAL CITATION C/SCA/10150/2025 JUDGMENT DATED: 12/09/2025 undefined Learned Labour Court, after considering the evidence placed on record, has allowed the petition, which is the subject matter of challenge before this Court.
3. Heard learned advocate Mr. Dipan Desai for the petitioner.
4. Learned advocate Mr. Desai for the petitioner submits that the recovery application was filed after a delay of 4 years and without establishing a pre-existing right, which is the primary consideration while adjudicating an application under Section 33- C(2) of the Industrial Disputes Act. Learned advocate Mr. Desai, in support of his said statement, has relied on the decision rendered by the Hon'ble Apex Court in the case of S. K. Kapur V/s. New Delhi Municipal Council reported in 2004 (10) SCC 679 and submitted that in an identical situation, the Hon'ble Apex Court has affirmed the order passed by the High Court rejecting the claim on the ground of delay.
4.1 Learned advocate Mr. Desai submits that the power under Section 33-C(2) is limited to enforcing a pre-existing right and any claim not previously adjudicated cannot be entertained under the provisions of Section 33-C(2). In that background, the learned Court has committed an error in directing the present petitioner Page 3 of 7 Uploaded by Vikramsinh Amarsinh(HCW0055) on Thu Sep 18 2025 Downloaded on : Thu Sep 18 22:14:06 IST 2025 NEUTRAL CITATION C/SCA/10150/2025 JUDGMENT DATED: 12/09/2025 undefined to pay the amount towards the 5th and 6th Pay Commission recommendations. Learned advocate Mr. Desai submits that even if the respondent is entitled to the same, as per the provisions of the Market Committee, unless and until sanction has been accorded by the higher Officer, the same cannot be granted in favour of the respondent and therefore, the impugned award deserves to be set aside. Learned advocate Mr. Desai, by submitting the same, has prayed to allow this petition by setting aside the impugned award passed by the learned Labour Court.
5. Having considered the arguments advanced by the learned advocate Mr. Desai for the petitioner and on referring to the reasons assigned by the learned Labour Court, certain undisputed facts are required to be considered, which are mentioned herein below. The claim of regularization, which was raised by the father of the respondent No.1, was awarded in his favour vide award dated 06.08.2010. The petition filed by the petitioner challenging the said award came to be dismissed for non-prosecution vide order dated 10.07.2019. Thereafter, neither any restoration application was filed nor any other proceedings were initiated to get the impugned award set aside. As per the Page 4 of 7 Uploaded by Vikramsinh Amarsinh(HCW0055) on Thu Sep 18 2025 Downloaded on : Thu Sep 18 22:14:06 IST 2025 NEUTRAL CITATION C/SCA/10150/2025 JUDGMENT DATED: 12/09/2025 undefined statement made by the learned advocate Mr. Desai for the petitioner, the benefit of the 5th Pay Commission has been given to the other employees from the year 1999 and the 6 th Pay Commission recommendation from the year 2004. Undisputedly, the award passed by the learned Labour Court remains non- complied with. The father of the respondent No.1 was expired on 31.05.2014, as mentioned at page No.15 of the award, para No.1.3 and till his death, he remained a daily wager and did not reap the fruit of the award. In that background, respondent No.1, who is the son of the workman, waited for 4 years and thereafter has filed the recovery application.
5.1 The judgment which was relied upon by the learned advocate Mr. Desai with regard to the delay in filing the recovery application, rendered in a case of S. K. Kapur (supra) by the Hon'ble Apex Court, pertained to a delay of 8 years in filing the recovery application for availing the benefit of the decision in the R.D. Gupta case. However, in the present case, the deceased - workman, during his life time, had filed proceedings for regularization, which were decided in his favour, but the award remained unimplemented and due to the fault of the petitioner Page 5 of 7 Uploaded by Vikramsinh Amarsinh(HCW0055) on Thu Sep 18 2025 Downloaded on : Thu Sep 18 22:14:06 IST 2025 NEUTRAL CITATION C/SCA/10150/2025 JUDGMENT DATED: 12/09/2025 undefined in non-complying with the order, the son has approached the learned Labour Court after a delay of 4 years. In the considered opinion of this court, the said judgment would not be applicable in the present case.
5.2 With regard to exercising the power under Section 33-C(2), this Court has referred to the decision rendered by the Hon'ble Apex Court in the case of Union of India v. Kankuben reported in (2006) 9 SCC 292, wherein the principle enunciated for exercising the powers under Section 33-C2 has been held as under.
"Whenever a workman is entitled to receive from his employer any money or any benefit which is capable of being computed in terms of money and which he is entitled to receive from his employer and is denied of such benefit can approach Labour Court under Section 33-C(2) of the Act. The benefit sought to be enforced under Section 33-C(2) of the Act is necessarily a pre- existing benefit or one flowing from a pre-existing right. The difference between a pre-existing right or benefit on one hand and the right or benefit, which is considered just and fair on the other hand is vital. The former falls within jurisdiction of Labour Court exercising powers under Section 33-C(2) of the Act while the latter does not."
5.3 Considering the overall circumstances, in the opinion of this Court, no error has been committed by the learned court in Page 6 of 7 Uploaded by Vikramsinh Amarsinh(HCW0055) on Thu Sep 18 2025 Downloaded on : Thu Sep 18 22:14:06 IST 2025 NEUTRAL CITATION C/SCA/10150/2025 JUDGMENT DATED: 12/09/2025 undefined granting the benefit of the recommendations of the 5 th and 6th Pay Commission. Hence, present petition deserves to be dismissed.
6. Resultantly, the present petition is dismissed.
(M. K. THAKKER,J) Vikramsinh Amarsinh Page 7 of 7 Uploaded by Vikramsinh Amarsinh(HCW0055) on Thu Sep 18 2025 Downloaded on : Thu Sep 18 22:14:06 IST 2025