Gujarat High Court
Dean, Government Dental College And ... vs Jentilal Baldev Ramavat on 20 February, 2025
NEUTRAL CITATION
C/SCA/12161/2024 JUDGMENT DATED: 20/02/2025
undefined
IN THE HIGH COURT OF GUJARAT AT AHMEDABAD
R/SPECIAL CIVIL APPLICATION NO. 12161 of 2024
FOR APPROVAL AND SIGNATURE:
HONOURABLE MRS. JUSTICE M. K. THAKKER
==========================================================
Approved for Reporting Yes No
No
==========================================================
DEAN, GOVERNMENT DENTAL COLLEGE AND HOSPITAL
Versus
JENTILAL BALDEV RAMAVAT
==========================================================
Appearance:
GOVERNMENT PLEADER for the Petitioner(s) No. 1
MR YOGEN N PANDYA(5766) for the Respondent(s) No. 1
==========================================================
CORAM:HONOURABLE MRS. JUSTICE M. K. THAKKER
Date : 20/02/2025
ORAL JUDGMENT
1. The present petition is filed challenging the award
passed by the learned Presiding Officer, Jamnagar in
Recovery 33(C)(2) Application No.89 of 2023 dated
03.01.2024, whereby the petitioner was directed to pay
the amount of Rs.3,29,076/- towards the wages for the
period of 24.04.2016 to 31.03.2019.
2. It is the case of the petitioner that the respondent was
NEUTRAL CITATION
C/SCA/12161/2024 JUDGMENT DATED: 20/02/2025
undefined
serving as a Class IV employee and was terminated from
the services, therefore, reference being Reference (T)
Application No.9 of 2009 filed before the learned labour
court which was allowed in favour of the respondent on
23.03.2016 directing the present petitioner to reinstate
the respondent without back wages.
3. Challenging the above award, petition came to be filed
before this Court being SCA No.4504 of 2017 which
came to be dismissed vide order dated 18.04.2018.
Thereafter, respondent was reinstated on 03.04.2019
through out sourcing agencies and on 11.05.2023, he
was reinstated by the petitioner as a Rojamdar on his
original post. As the compliance of the order was made
in the year 2023, therefore, the recovery application
came to be filed under section 33(C)2 for recovery of
wages for the period between date of award and date of
reinstatement which came to be allowed by the learned
court vide order dated 03.01.2024 and the same is
subject matter of challenge before this Court.
4. Heard learned AGP Ms.Surbhi Bhati for the petitioner
and learned advocate Mr.Yogen Pandya, for the
respondent.
NEUTRAL CITATION
C/SCA/12161/2024 JUDGMENT DATED: 20/02/2025
undefined
5. Learned AGP Ms.Bhati submits that the application filed
under section 33(C)(2) is not maintainable as the amount
which is claimed was disputed by the present petitioner.
It is further submitted that when there is a disputed
question of facts and law, same cannot be decided by
exercising the power under section 33(C)2. Learned AGP
Ms.Bhati submits that as during the pendency of the
petition before this Court wages under section 17(b) of
the ID Act has been paid, therefore, also the amount as
awarded by the learned court by exercising the power
under section 33(C)2 of the ID Act is erroneous. Learned
AGP Ms.Bhati submits that the learned court has
exceeded the jurisdiction under section 33(C)2 of the ID
Act, therefore, petition filed by the present petitioner
requires to be allowed and the impugned order deserves
to be set aside.
6. As against the same learned advocate Mr.Pandya
submits that the award of the reinstatement passed on
23.03.2016 was implemented by the petitioner Authority
on 11.05.2023 and therefore, the respondent-workman
has claimed the wages for the interregnum period which
was rightly allowed by the learned labour court. Learned
NEUTRAL CITATION
C/SCA/12161/2024 JUDGMENT DATED: 20/02/2025
undefined
advocate Mr.Pandya submits that as the learned labour
court has awarded the said amount after assigning the
detailed reason and examining the calculation which is
given by the present respondent workman, no
interference is required and the petition is required to
be dismissed.
7. Having considered the arguments advanced by the
learned advocates for the respective parties and the
reasons assigned by the leaned labour court while
allowing the application under section 33(C)2, it
transpires that though award was passed directing the
present petitioner to reinstate the respondent on
23.03.2016, the same was implemented after filing the
contempt petition before this Court. With regard to the
jurisdiction aspect, is concerned this Court is of the view
that mere denial of the right by the employer may not be
sufficient to negative the claim made under section
33(C)2 before the learned labour court and the same
would not take away the jurisdiction of the court.
7.1. The jurisdiction of the learned labour court would not
only confine to the admitted claims and existing right
does not mean that admitted rights, it only means that
NEUTRAL CITATION
C/SCA/12161/2024 JUDGMENT DATED: 20/02/2025
undefined
right to claim exist and vest in the workman. In that
view this Court did not find any infirmity in the
impugned judgment as after assigning detailed reasons
and after deducting the amount paid towards the wages
under section 17(b) of the ID Act, the learned labour
court has directed the petitioner to pay the amount of
Rs.3,29,076/-. The petitioner is directed that the amount
as directed by the learned labour court shall be paid
within a period of 12 weeks from the date of receipt of
the order. In that view petition being devoid of merits,
deserves to be dismissed.
8. Resultantly, this petition is dismissed.
(M. K. THAKKER,J)
NIVYA A. NAIR
