President / Chairman Atlas Copco ... vs Shyamsunder Jagdishchandra ...
2023 Latest Caselaw 2199 Guj

     C/SCA/18939/2018                           ORDER DATED: 13/03/2023




            IN THE HIGH COURT OF GUJARAT AT AHMEDABAD

             R/SPECIAL CIVIL APPLICATION NO. 18939 of 2018

==========================================================
          PRESIDENT / CHAIRMAN ATLAS COPCO (I) LIMITED
                            Versus
         SHYAMSUNDER JAGDISHCHANDRA VERMA & 1 other(s)
==========================================================
Appearance:
MR SUDHIR NANAVATI, SENIOR ADVOCATE FOR NANAVATI &
NANAVATI(1933) for the Petitioner(s) No. 1
MR P C CHAUDHARI(5770) for the Respondent(s) No. 1
NOTICE SERVED BY DS for the Respondent(s) No. 3
UNSERVED REFUSED (N) for the Respondent(s) No. 2
==========================================================

 CORAM:HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE ANIRUDDHA P. MAYEE

                            Date : 13/03/2023
                             ORAL ORDER

1. The present Special Civil Application impugns the

judgment and order dated 27.09.2018 below Exhibit 32 in

Recovery No.369 of 2007 whereby the present petitioner has

been joined as a party to the recovery proceedings before the

Labour Court, Ahmedabad.

2. In the Recovery Application No.369 of 2007, the

petitioner herein came to be named as a party respondent

along with respondent No.2 herein by the respondent-

workman. By the order dated 05.10.2009, the Presiding

C/SCA/18939/2018 ORDER DATED: 13/03/2023

Officer, Labour Court, Ahmedabad passed an order for

recovery against respondent No.2 as well as the petitioner

herein. Thereafter, an application came to be made jointly

on behalf of the respondent No.2 as well as the petitioner

herein for recalling of the said order dated 05.10.2009

under Rule 26A of the Industrial Disputes (Gujarat) Rules,

1996. By order dated 22.10.2013, the said application

under Rule 26A came to be allowed and the order dated

05.10.2009 came to be recalled by the learned Labour

Court. Thereafter, the respondent workman moved an

application under Exhibit 32 for joining the petitioner herein

as a party respondent to the recovery proceedings which

came to be allowed the impugned order.

3. Mr.Sudhir Nanavati, learned Senior Advocate

appearing on behalf of Nanavati & Nanavati for the

petitioner submits that the impugned order has been

passed without taking into account the factual details and

only on the averment that respondent No.2 Company was

taken over by the petitioner Company herein. He submits

C/SCA/18939/2018 ORDER DATED: 13/03/2023

that such a fact is not correct and the learned Labour Court

has not properly appreciated the contentions raised while

joining the petitioner as a party respondent to the recovery

proceedings. He, therefore, submits that the present

impugned order be set aside and the petitioner may be

permitted to adduce evidence and necessary documents to

show that the respondent No.2 Company has not been

taken over by the petitioner.

4. Per contra, Mr.P.C. Chaudhari, learned advocate for

the respondent submits that as per the information

available on the petitioner company's website, the petitioner

has acquired respondent No.2 Company herein. He submits

that such information has been downloaded and produced

on record from the website of the petitioner company itself.

He, therefore, submits that no error has been committed

while passing an order for joining the petitioner as a

necessary party to the recovery proceedings. He, therefore,

submits that in the recovery proceedings, evidence is yet to

be led, and therefore, the opportunity is available to the

C/SCA/18939/2018 ORDER DATED: 13/03/2023

petitioner to dispute its liability.

5. Heard learned counsel for the parties and perused the

documents on record.

6. In the present case, by the impugned order, the

petitioner has been joined as a party respondent to the

recovery proceedings. Learned Labour Court relying on the

documents produced before it as well as considering the

arguments of the parties has prima facie come to the

conclusion that the petitioner is a necessary party to the

recovery proceedings. However, with respect to the question

of liability, the same is yet to be decided in the recovery

proceedings which are pending before the learned Labour

Court.

7. In the interest of justice, this court is of the opinion

that the petitioner as well as the respondent workman are

permitted to place on record the evidence in support of their

contentions. Both the parties shall be at liberty to raise all

C/SCA/18939/2018 ORDER DATED: 13/03/2023

the contentions as available to them in law. Thereafter, the

learned Labour Court after hearing all the parties may

decide the question of liability in respect of the petitioner

Company. In case, the Labour Court comes to the

conclusion that the petitioner Company is not liable in

respect of the recovery proceedings pending before it, the

present impugned order shall stand merged in the final

order passed in the recovery proceedings and the petitioner

Company shall stand deleted as party respondent in the

recovery proceedings before the Labour Court.

8. The learned Labour Court is directed to dispose of the

Recovery Application on or before 30 th September, 2023. All

the parties are directed to cooperate to the speedy disposal

of the recovery proceedings. It is made clear that this Court

has not gone into the merits of the case and no observation

is made on the merits. The Labour Court shall decide the

issue of liability of the petitioner herein on its own merits in

accordance with law.

C/SCA/18939/2018 ORDER DATED: 13/03/2023

Accordingly the Special Civil Application stands

disposed of. No order as to costs.

(ANIRUDDHA P. MAYEE, J.) ALI