Gujarat High Court
Vimalkumar Bharatbhai Malam vs Tata Chemicals Limited on 11 July, 2025
NEUTRAL CITATION
C/SCA/4284/2023 JUDGMENT DATED: 11/07/2025
undefined
IN THE HIGH COURT OF GUJARAT AT AHMEDABAD
R/SPECIAL CIVIL APPLICATION NO. 4284 of 2023
FOR APPROVAL AND SIGNATURE:
HONOURABLE MRS. JUSTICE M. K. THAKKER
==========================================================
Approved for Reporting Yes No
✔
==========================================================
VIMALKUMAR BHARATBHAI MALAM
Versus
TATA CHEMICALS LIMITED & ORS.
==========================================================
Appearance:
MR UT MISHRA(3605) for the Petitioner(s) No. 1
NOTICE SERVED for the Respondent(s) No. 1,4
NOTICE THROUGH RPAD UNSERVED for the Respondent(s) No. 2,3
==========================================================
CORAM:HONOURABLE MRS. JUSTICE M. K. THAKKER
Date : 11/07/2025
ORAL JUDGMENT
1. Endorsement on the cause list indicates that notice has
been served upon respondent Nos. 1 and 4; however,
none has appeared on their behalf. As regards
respondent Nos. 2 and 3, the notice sent through RPAD
has remained unserved, as the postal cover was
returned with the remark "insufficient address".
2. The present petition has been filed by the petitioner
challenging the order dated 23.03.2022 passed in
NEUTRAL CITATION
C/SCA/4284/2023 JUDGMENT DATED: 11/07/2025
undefined
Recovery C-1 Application No. 6 of 2020, whereby the
learned Labour Court, while directing respondent No.1
to file an affidavit clarifying whether the security of
respondent Nos. 2 and 3 is lying with him, further held
that in the absence of such an affidavit, the petitioner
shall be entitled to proceed under Section 33C(1) of the
Industrial Disputes Act, 1947 (hereinafter referred to as
the "ID Act") to initiate proceedings under the
provisions of the Land Revenue Code, 1879.
3. It is the case of the petitioner that the reference filed
challenging the order of termination was decided in
favour of the petitioner by an award dated 30.11.2019,
passed in Reference No. 82 of 2012. By the said award,
the learned Labour Court directed respondent Nos. 2
and 3 to pay lump sum compensation of ₹75,000/- to the
petitioner in lieu of reinstatement and other benefits. It
was further directed that, in case of failure on the part
of respondent Nos. 2 and 3 to make such payment,
respondent No.1 shall pay the said amount from the
security deposit of respondent Nos. 2 and 3. As
respondent Nos. 2 and 3 failed to comply with the
award, the petitioner initiated proceedings under
NEUTRAL CITATION
C/SCA/4284/2023 JUDGMENT DATED: 11/07/2025
undefined
Section 33C(1) of the Industrial Disputes Act by filing
Application No. 6 of 2020. In those proceedings, the
learned Labour Court directed respondent No.1 to file
an affidavit clarifying the status of the security deposit
of respondent Nos. 2 and 3. It was further observed that,
in the absence of such an affidavit, the petitioner would
be entitled to initiate recovery proceedings under the
Land Revenue Code. The said order is the subject matter
of challenge in the present petition.
4. Heard learned advocate Mr.U.T.Mishra for the petitioner
and as observed above, though respondent has been
served, no one has appeared.
4.1. Learned advocate Mr.Mishra submits that as the
directions issued in the reference being reference No.82
of 2012 was not complied with, the recovery application
was filed, wherein though the learned court has
observed that the petitioner would be entitled to recover
the amount through the Gujarat Land Revenue Code
however, has disposed of the application instead of
issuing the recovery certificate. Learned advocate
Mr.Mishra submits that, in the absence of any pending
proceedings, the petitioner is left without an effective
NEUTRAL CITATION
C/SCA/4284/2023 JUDGMENT DATED: 11/07/2025
undefined
remedy to obtain a recovery certificate for the
implementation of the award. In view of the aforesaid
facts and circumstances, learned advocate Mr. Mishra
prays that the present petition be allowed and the
learned Labour Court be directed to issue the necessary
recovery certificate in accordance with law.
5. Having considered the arguments advanced by the
learned advocate, it emerges that learned reference
court has awarded the reference being No.82 of 2012 in
favour of the present petitioner by issuing the following
directions:-
"1. This Reference is partly allowed.
2. The Respondents No. 1 and 2 of this case shall pay lump-
sum amount of Rs. 75,000/- as compensation in lieu of
reinstatement to the Applicant of this application within 30
days from the publication of this award.
3. Further, the Respondent No. 3 of this case is hereby
ordered that if the Respondent No. 1 and 2 fail to make
payment of the above mentioned amount within 30 days
from the publication of this award, procedure shall be
undertaken to make payment of above mentioned lump-
sum amount of Rs. 75,000/- and Rs. 5,000/- as cost of this
application to the Applicant from the Security Deposit of
Respondent No. 1 and 2 deposited with the Respondent No.
3. The Respondent No. 1 and 2 shall pay Rs. 5,000/- to the
NEUTRAL CITATION
C/SCA/4284/2023 JUDGMENT DATED: 11/07/2025
undefined
Applicant as cost of this application. The Respondents shall
bear their own cost."
6. As the directions issued by the learned labour court has
not been complied with, therefore, the proceedings were
initiated under section 33 C (1) of the ID Act by filing the
Recovery Application being No.6 of 2020. It emerges
that, in the said recovery application, the learned Labour
Court directed respondent No.1 to file an affidavit
clarifying the aspect of the security deposit. In the
operative portion of the order, it was further observed
that, in the absence of such an affidavit, the petitioner
would be entitled to initiate recovery proceedings. This
Court is of the view that, having issued such directions,
the learned Labour Court ought to have proceeded to
issue a recovery certificate. Instead, the petitioner was
merely left with the liberty to initiate recovery
proceedings which, in fact, had already been initiated by
filing Recovery Application No. 6 of 2020. In this
background, the petition deserves to be allowed. The
Recovery Application No. 6 of 2020 is required to be
reconsidered and decided afresh by the learned Labour
Court, with specific directions issued in favour of the
NEUTRAL CITATION
C/SCA/4284/2023 JUDGMENT DATED: 11/07/2025
undefined
petitioner, in accordance with law.
7. Resultantly, this petition is allowed with the above
directions.
(M. K. THAKKER,J)
NIVYA A. NAIR
