Mahindra Gujarat Tractor Limited vs Narendra Lallubhai Bhatia
2023 Latest Caselaw 1674 Guj

      C/LPA/155/2023                                     ORDER DATED: 20/02/2023




            IN THE HIGH COURT OF GUJARAT AT AHMEDABAD

                R/LETTERS PATENT APPEAL NO. 155 of 2023

            In R/SPECIAL CIVIL APPLICATION NO. 7171 of 2017

                                       With

               CIVIL APPLICATION (FOR STAY) NO. 1 of 2022
               In R/LETTERS PATENT APPEAL NO. 155 of 2023

==========================================================
                       MAHINDRA GUJARAT TRACTOR LIMITED
                                    Versus
                          NARENDRA LALLUBHAI BHATIA
==========================================================
Appearance:
MR DG SHUKLA(1998) for the Appellant(s) No. 1
MR HARSHEEL D SHUKLA(6158) for the Appellant(s) No. 1
for the Respondent(s) No. 2
MR RAJESH P MANKAD(2637) for the Respondent(s) No. 1
==========================================================

 CORAM:HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE N.V.ANJARIA
       and
       HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE NIRAL R. MEHTA

                                 Date : 20/02/2023

                            ORAL ORDER

(PER : HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE N.V.ANJARIA)

Heard learned advocate Mr.D.G. Shukla for the appellant.

2. This Letters Patent Appeal under Clause 15 of the Letters Patent is directed against the judgment and order dated 1.2.2022 by learned Single Judge, whereby learned Single Judge dismissed the Special Civil Application of the appellant herein.

2.1    The petition filed by the appellant - original petitioner





       C/LPA/155/2023                                     ORDER DATED: 20/02/2023

was directed against the order dated 22.9.2016 passed by Labour Court, Vadodara in Recovery Application No.447 of 2014, whereby the Labour Court directed the petitioner employer to pay an amount of Rs.28,364.25 to the workman.

3. The facts in the backdrop are inter alia that services of respondent No.1 workman was terminated by the appellant petitioner on the ground of misconduct on 12.7.1994. The Reference (LCV) No.904 of 1994 was filed before the Labour Court, Vadodara which was partly allowed and the first party employer was directed to reinstate the workman with continuity of service but without back wages. The punishment of withholding of three yearly increments with permanent effect came to be imposed by the Labour Court.

3.1 Thereafter, the appellant filed Special Civil Application No.13679 of 2005 in which the aforementioned judgment and award of the Labour Court, Vadodara was challenged, this petition was dismissed on 26.2.2013 confirming the award of Labour Court. Consequently, the workman was reinstated in service on 1.4.2013.

3.2 It was thereafter that the workman filed Recovery Application which resulted into the impugned order for payment of amount of Rs.28,364.25 which was a difference of amount to be paid in respect of period from 1.4.2013 to 30.6.2014.

4. Before learned Single Judge in the Special Civil Application as well as before this Court, it was the main plank

C/LPA/155/2023 ORDER DATED: 20/02/2023

of contention on behalf of the appellant - employer that right to recover the amount of difference for the aforesaid period could not be treated as pre-existing right to become subject matter of proceedings under Section 33(C)(2) of the Industrial Disputes Act, 1947. It was the contention that the said entitlement was needed to be adjudicated by the Labour Court, therefore would not come within purview of Section 33(C)(2) of the Act.

4.1 The learned Single Judge held that the claim lodged by the workman under Section 33(C)(2) was a pre-determined right. Not only that, it was fairly conceded by learned advocate for the appellant that the amount was calculated by the Labour Court which came to be upheld by learned Single Judge. In other words, the right was enforced by determined amount which was already due and came to be calculated by the Labour Court and subsequently, reexamined to be proved by the learned Single Judge.

5. Following reasons weighed with the learned Single Judge in dismissing the Special Civil Application,

"11. From the record it appears that, the respondent- workman has been re-instated on 01.04.2013, i.e. after a very long time of the award. When this Court has confirmed the award, the effect thereof is that the respondent-workman is entitled to be re-instated with all benefits in the service from 18.03.2005. In the recovery application, the respondent- workman has sought the benefits of the settlement arrived at 09.11.2012 for the period of 01.10.2012 to 30.09.2015. If the respondent-workman would have been reinstated as per the award dated 18.03.2005, then he could have become entitled to the benefits of this settlement. The respondent-workman is reinstated after long delay which is employer's fault because the respondent workman becomes entitled to all the benefits

C/LPA/155/2023 ORDER DATED: 20/02/2023

from 18.03.2005. When this Court confirmed the award, it is to be interpreted that the respondent-workman is in service from 18.03.2005. Hence, the respondent-workman becomes entitled to the benefits of the aforesaid settlement. Similarly, the respondent-workman was awarded various benefits for the duration of 01.01.2008 to 31.12.2010 by the Industrial Court in the Reference (I.T.) no.67/2002. ..."

5.1 It was finally observed in the same paragraph.

"... As per the award, the respondent workman was entitled to be reinstated in service from 18.03.2005 and was also entitled to all the benefits after 18.03.2005. Hence, considering the duration of Reference (I.T.), if respondent- workman would have been reinstated timely in the service, the respondent workman would have received the benefits but he is reinstated in the service after delay and hence, respondent- workman can not be held guilty for this delay."

5.2 Having recorded as above, learned Single Judge also recorded that the amount was too small to be needed to be interfered with by the Court. Thus, both on count of merits as well as on the ground of smallness of amount, the case of the employer was negatived.

6. This Court finds that the right which was agitated by the workman before the Labour Court was pre-existing right to receive the amount flowing from the judgment and award of the Labour Court, further examined by this Court in Special Civil Application No.13679 of 2005 decided on 26.2.2013. Reading those orders together, clear pre-existing right arose for the workman to seek relief under Section 33(C)(2) of the Industrial Disputes Act, 1947.

7. There is no merit in this Letters Patent Appeal. It is summarily dismissed.

C/LPA/155/2023 ORDER DATED: 20/02/2023

Civil Application does not survive in view of the dismissal of Letters Patent Appeal. It is accordingly disposed of.

(N.V.ANJARIA, J)

(NIRAL R. MEHTA,J) V.J. SATWARA