Baba Moulding And Engineering ... vs Rajkapoor Bhogilal Pal
2022 Latest Caselaw 7124 Guj

     C/SCA/1618/2019                             JUDGMENT DATED: 10/08/2022




             IN THE HIGH COURT OF GUJARAT AT AHMEDABAD

               R/SPECIAL CIVIL APPLICATION NO. 1618 of 2019


FOR APPROVAL AND SIGNATURE:


HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE BIREN VAISHNAV
==========================================================
1     Whether Reporters of Local Papers may be allowed
      to see the judgment ?

2     To be referred to the Reporter or not ?

3     Whether their Lordships wish to see the fair copy
      of the judgment ?

4     Whether this case involves a substantial question
      of law as to the interpretation of the Constitution
      of India or any order made thereunder ?

==========================================================
BABA MOULDING AND ENGINEERING THROUGH PROPRIETOR RITESH
                     RAJUBHAI PATEL
                         Versus
                RAJKAPOOR BHOGILAL PAL
==========================================================
Appearance:
MR UT MISHRA(3605) for the Petitioner(s) No. 1
NOTICE SERVED BY DS for the Respondent(s) No. 1,2,3,4,5,6,7
MR.KURVEN DESAI, ASSISTANT GOVERNMENT PLEADER, for the
Respondent(s) No. 6
==========================================================
    CORAM:HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE BIREN VAISHNAV

                             Date : 10/08/2022
                             ORAL JUDGMENT

1       Leave to delete respondent No. 7.



2       Rule returnable forthwith. Mr.Kurven Desai, learned






     C/SCA/1618/2019                                 JUDGMENT DATED: 10/08/2022

Assistant Government Pleader, waives service of notice of

rule on behalf of respondent No.6. Though served,

nobody appears for the remaining respondents.

3 Under challenge in this petition is the order passed

by the In-charge Chief Judge, Labour Court, Ahmedabad,

dated 17.1.2019. By the aforesaid order, the application

filed by the petitioner to restore and re-hear the Payment

Of Wages Application No. 94 of 2015 which was not

allowed by the Labour Court by its order dated

01.04.2016 has been rejected.

4 Facts in brief would indicate that the Labour Court

proceeded to decide the Payment of Wages Application

No. 94/2015 against the employer - Baba Casting, having

address at 19, Maruti Estate, Opp.Haraniya Vas, Odhav,

Ahmedabad.

4.1 It is the case of the petitioner that during the course

of hearing of this application, the Labour Court had

issued notice which had returned unserved as is evident

C/SCA/1618/2019 JUDGMENT DATED: 10/08/2022

from the endorsement dated 21.03.2015.

4.2 The workman, then by way of an application, exh.10,

corrected the address of the employer to read as one at

33, Gujarat Vepari Mahamandal, Odhav, Ahmedabad.

4.3 After correcting the address, without issuing notice

at the new address, the Labour Court proceeded to

decide the application against the petitioner. Thereafter,

as a recovery certificate was issued by the Labour Court

under the Payment of Wages Act on 20.07.2017, which

was served on the petitioner on 01.08.2017, the

petitioner has deposited the amount pursuant to the

recovery certificate so issued and lying before the Labour

Court at Ahmedabad.

5 Mr.U.T.Mishra, learned counsel for the petitioner,

would submit that the entire award under the Payment of

Wages Act passed on 01.04.2016 was not served on the

petitioner, as after the request for the change of address

unilaterally by the workman, the authority proceeded to

C/SCA/1618/2019 JUDGMENT DATED: 10/08/2022

decide the reference without issuing notice to the

petitioner on the fresh address. When the application was

filed, by the impugned order, the restoration application

has been refused to be registered. Considering the fact

that the petitioner was not even aware of the change of

address unilaterally done by the respondents nos. 1 to 5,

and only when the recovery certificate was served, did

the petitioner come to know of such ex-parte award, the

application for restoration was filed which, based on an

endorsement of the Office Superintendent, has been

refused to be registered.

6 Accordingly, the order dated 17.07.2019 passed by

the In-charge Chief Judge, Labour Court, Ahmedabad, is

quashed and set aside. The Labour Court is directed to

register the restoration application and hear the same on

merits, within a period of six months from the date of

receipt of copy of this order. The petition is allowed,

accordingly. Rule is made absolute to the above extent.

(BIREN VAISHNAV, J) BIMAL