Gujarat High Court

Vijaykumar Shivdarshan Verma vs Krishnaram Dying And Finishing Works on 30 April, 2025

                                                                                                                 NEUTRAL CITATION




                           C/SCA/5915/2024                                       JUDGMENT DATED: 30/04/2025

                                                                                                                 undefined




                                    IN THE HIGH COURT OF GUJARAT AT AHMEDABAD

                                      R/SPECIAL CIVIL APPLICATION NO. 5915 of 2024


                      FOR APPROVAL AND SIGNATURE:


                      HONOURABLE MRS. JUSTICE M. K. THAKKER

                      ==========================================================

                                   Approved for Reporting                       Yes           No
                                                                                 
                      ==========================================================
                                       VIJAYKUMAR SHIVDARSHAN VERMA & ORS.
                                                      Versus
                                   KRISHNARAM DYING AND FINISHING WORKS & ORS.
                      ==========================================================
                      Appearance:
                      MR UT MISHRA(3605) for the Petitioner(s) No. 1,10,2,3,4,5,6,7,8,9
                      MR DIPAK R DAVE(1232) for the Respondent(s) No. 3,4
                      NOTICE SERVED for the Respondent(s) No. 1,2
                      ==========================================================

                         CORAM:HONOURABLE MRS. JUSTICE M. K. THAKKER

                                                            Date : 30/04/2025

                                                           ORAL JUDGMENT

1. This petition is filed under Article 226 and 227 of the

Constitution of India, challenging the order passed by

the learned Authority under the Payment of Wages Act,

1936 passed below Exh.44 dated 19.04.2023 by which

the application preferred by the present petitioner for

appointment of the Court Commissioner or to direct the

respondent to deposit the legal dues of the petitioner,

NEUTRAL CITATION

C/SCA/5915/2024 JUDGMENT DATED: 30/04/2025

undefined

came to be rejected.

2. It is the case of the petitioner that the petitioners were

serving with the respondent Authority from the year

2000 on the post of Operator, Painter, Borderman etc. in

the Printing Department and the respondent Authority

had closed down the establishment and accordingly the

petitioners were not allowed to resume the duty from

24.02.2009 and the amount under the Act like notice

pay, gratuity, retrenchment compensation, due bonus

etc. were not paid. Therefore, the application is filed

under the Payment of Wages Act being Wage Application

No.369 of 2011 under section 17(A) of the Payment of

Wages Act seeking direction against the respondent

employer. During the pendency of the dispute the

application came to be filed seeking direction against

the respondent employer not to sell the property of the

establishment till the application is heard and decided

by the Payment of Wage Authority-labour court. The

learned court, after hearing both the parties has passed

interim order below Exh.2 dated 12.12.2017, whereby

the application filed by the petitioner was partly allowed

and respondent employer was directed not to sell the

NEUTRAL CITATION

C/SCA/5915/2024 JUDGMENT DATED: 30/04/2025

undefined

property and machineries which are installed in the

respondent establishment as well as to maintain the

status quo till the application is heard and decided by

the Court.

2.1. The Wage Application being 369 of 2011 was heard

and was kept for arguments in the year 2020 and at that

stage, other application came to be filed by the present

petitioner alleging that despite the status quo order was

granted with regard to the property in question, the

respondent employer is disposing of the entire property

of the establishment. By filing the application below

Exh.44, request was made for appointment of the

Commissioner which was turned down by the learned

labour court and the same is the subject matter of

challenge before this Court.

3. Heard learned advocate Mr.U.T.Mishra for the petitioner

and learned advocate Mr.Dipak Dave for the respondent.

4. Learned advocate Mr.Mishra submits that as per the

information received dated 14.06.2023, it was informed

that at present there is no production process going on

in the factory and no machineries are lying with the

factory. Learned advocate Mr.Mishra submits that on

NEUTRAL CITATION

C/SCA/5915/2024 JUDGMENT DATED: 30/04/2025

undefined

receiving the said information, a complaint came to be

filed before the labour Commissioner alleging that the

respondent employer has flouted the orders and

therefore, Court Commissioner is required to be

appointed. However, instead of ascertaining the facts

through the Court Commissioner, learned labour court

has rejected the application and therefore, same is

required to be set aside by allowing the application filed

below Exh.44.

5. As against the same, learned advocate Mr.Dave submits

that the stage of the Wage Application filed under the

Payment of Wages Act being No.369 of 2011 is of

argument since the year 2020. It is submitted by the

learned advocate Mr.Dave that on being terminated on

24.02.2009, after the delay of two years in the year July,

2011, the Wage Application was filed. It is further

submitted by the learned advocate Mr.Dave that the

earlier Wage Application whcih is filed being the

Payment of Wage Application No.164 of 2008 was

withdrawn and thereafter, the present Wage Application

was filed though other Union. Learned advocate

Mr.Dave submits that the closing pursis came to be filed

NEUTRAL CITATION

C/SCA/5915/2024 JUDGMENT DATED: 30/04/2025

undefined

by the petitioner on 02.01.2020 below Exh.42 and

thereafter, though the matter was placed on board, on

various dates, however, instead of completing the

arguments the petitioner is trying to delay the

proceedings. Learned advocate Mr.Dave submits that

the present appreciation filed below Exh.44 is also filed

after two years of filing of the closing pursis and the

same was after changing the Union who earlier filed the

application before the learned labour court.

5.1. Learned advocate Mr.Dave submits that as the

petitioner does not have a good case on merits, instead

of concluding the proceedings he is filing the application

one after the other, so that no final order can be passed.

Learned advocate Mr.Dave submits that after assigning

detailed reasons the learned labour court under the

Payment of Wages Authority Act has passed the

impugned order, therefore, no interference is required

and the petition is required to be dismissed.

6. Having considered the arguments advanced by learned

advocates and the reasons assigned by the learned

labour court while rejecting the application below

Exh.44, it emerges that initially the application filed

NEUTRAL CITATION

C/SCA/5915/2024 JUDGMENT DATED: 30/04/2025

undefined

below Exh.2 in payment of wages act application No.369

of 2011, learned labour court has granted the status quo

vide order dated 12.12.2017. It also emerges from the

record that previously, the payment of wages application

being No.164 of 2008 came to be filed by 31 employees,

however, on withdrawing the same, the present

application is filed by 11 employees through different

Union. At this stage reference of sub section 2 of the

section 15 is required to be made which is reproduced

herein below:-

"15. Claims arising out of deductions from wages or delay in payment of wages and penalty for malicious or vexatious claims.

(1) *** (2) Where contrary to the provisions of this Act any deduction has been made from the wages of an employed person, or any payment of wages has been delayed, such person himself, or any legal practitioner or any official of a registered trade union authorised in writing to act on his behalf, or any Inspector under this Act, or any other person acting with the permission of the authority appointed under sub-section (1), may apply to such authority for a direction under sub-section (3):

Provided that every such application shall be presented within 1 [twelve months] from the date on which the deduction from the wages was made or from the date on which the payment of the wages was due to be made, as the case may be:

Provided further that any application may be admitted after the

NEUTRAL CITATION

C/SCA/5915/2024 JUDGMENT DATED: 30/04/2025

undefined

said period of 1 [twelve months] when the applicant satisfies the authority that he had sufficient cause for not making the application within such period."

7. As per the above provision, application has to be filed

within a period of 12 months from the date on which the

deduction from the wages was made or from the date on

which the payment of wages was due to be made and the

second proviso suggests that the Authority on being

satisfied that there is a sufficient cause for not making

an application within a prescribed period may admit the

application after the said period. The learned Authority

has observed in the order that the application was filed

beyond a period of two years under the Payment of

Wages Act as well as the Exh.44 is filed after a period of

two years of filing the closing pursis. It emerges from