Parmar Mulji Thakersinhbhai vs The Managing Director
2021 Latest Caselaw 7926 Guj

      C/SCA/21458/2019                             ORDER DATED: 07/07/2021



             IN THE HIGH COURT OF GUJARAT AT AHMEDABAD

              R/SPECIAL CIVIL APPLICATION NO. 21458 of 2019
==========================================================
                         PARMAR MULJI THAKERSINHBHAI
                                   Versus
                           THE MANAGING DIRECTOR
==========================================================
Appearance:
MR TR MISHRA(483) for the Petitioner(s) No. 1
MR DIPAK R DAVE(1232) for the Respondent(s) No. 1
NOTICE SERVED(4) for the Respondent(s) No. 2
==========================================================

     CORAM:HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE UMESH A. TRIVEDI

                               Date : 07/07/2021
                                ORAL ORDER

1. By way of this petition, the petitioner has prayed for issuance of writ of mandamus and/or any other appropriate writ, order or direction, directing the respondents to release the wages for the period from 09.09.2020, the date on which the award become enforceable, till actual reinstatement i.e. 05.10.2012 with interest at the rate of 12%. Such claim is based on award, came to be passed by the Labour Court on 04.05.2000.

2. Mr. T. R. Mishra, learned advocate for the petitioner submitted that since award became enforceable, after it was published, from 09.09.2000, he is entitled to the wages till he is actually reinstated, pursuant to the award passed by the Labour Court.

3. For praying such reliefs, he has relied on a decision of the Supreme Court in the case of R. K. Nigam Vs. Swadeshi

C/SCA/21458/2019 ORDER DATED: 07/07/2021

Cotton Mills and Another, reported in (2003) 10 SCC 245, more particularly, paragraph nos.3 and 8 of the aforesaid decision. He has also relied on a common judgment dated 24.02.2015 rendered by the Coordinate Bench of this Court in Special Civil Application No.7593 of 2004 and Special Civil Application No.11589 of 2004, in the case of Deesa Nagarpalika Vs. Hiralal Girdharlal Khatri, more particularly paragraph No.13 of it, in support of his submission that if award for reinstatement of workman is confirmed, he is entitled for the wages after expiry of period of one month from the date of the award till the workman is actually reinstated minus the amount already paid to him by way of compliance to the provisions of Section 17B of the Industrial Disputes Act, 1947 (hereinafter referred to as 'the Act').

4. Having heard Mr. Mishra, learned advocate for the petitioner, it is clear that the prayers prayed for in this petition are in the nature of recovery proceedings, the award based on which such reliefs are claimed under Article 226 of the Constitution of India is dated 04.05.2000, which claimed to be confirmed by this Court vide order dated 03.05.2012, therefore if at all, under the law, the petitioner is entitled for any amount as prayed for in this petition, he shall have to resort to the remedy available, that too, within a period of limitation, if at all, it applies. However, after a period of about 20 years of the said order passed by the Labour Court and nearly about 7 years of the disposal of the petition before this Court , no such prayer for execution of the award, as claimed in this petition

C/SCA/21458/2019 ORDER DATED: 07/07/2021

should have been filed before this Court under Article 226 of the Constitution of India.

5. Reliance placed on the judgment of the Supreme Court in the case of R. K. Nigam (Supra) is also not helpful to the petitioner, as it is clearly stated in paragraph no.3 thereof, that while confirming the order passed by the Labour Court, the High Court had made it clear that the petitioner would be entitled to his regular salary from the date of reinstatement and he would not be entitled to his regular salary for the intervening period. Based on such direction in that case, the appellant-workman therein aggrieved by the modification effected to the award holding workman entitled for the regular salary from the date of reinstatement and denying his regular salary for the intervening period, the same was challenged by the workman before the Supreme Court. That part of decision was set aside and therefore, the Supreme Court in paragraph no.8 thereof, directed to compute and pay wages for that period. There is no such adjudication by this Court while confirming the award passed by the Labour Court, which is annexed with the petition at page No.14. However, the said decision has no applicability so far as execution of award is concerned, for which there is an equally efficacious remedy available and this Court cannot be reduced to a court of execution of Labour Court award, that too, after an inordinate delay of at least of 7 years, if not more than that. If at all petitioner perceive any right either he may get it adjudicated or executed by filing appropriate proceeding

C/SCA/21458/2019 ORDER DATED: 07/07/2021

before the appropriate Court.

6. The second decision, which is relied on by the learned advocate for the petitioner in the case of Deesa Nagarpalika (Supra) for interpretation of the provision regarding entitlement of the workman thereunder, which is stated in it, there is no dispute in that regard. However, that decision is also not on the point whether the award passed by the Labour Court can be executed in a writ petition under Article 226 of the Constitution of India or not by this Court for release of wages from 09.09.2000 i.e. the date of enforceablity of the award till his reinstatement, when there is most alternative and efficacious remedy for enforcement of the award is prescribed under 'the Act' itself, no writ petition under Article 226 of the Constitution of India, that too, after an inordinate delay, which involves even calculation of the wages, would be maintainable. Hence, this petition is hereby rejected. Notice is discharged.

(UMESH A. TRIVEDI, J) TUVAR