Gujarat High Court
Bharat Shamaldas Soni vs Cargo Motors (Gujarat) Pvt. Ltd on 10 November, 2025
NEUTRAL CITATION
C/SCA/14073/2023 JUDGMENT DATED: 10/11/2025
undefined
IN THE HIGH COURT OF GUJARAT AT AHMEDABAD
R/SPECIAL CIVIL APPLICATION NO. 14073 of 2023
FOR APPROVAL AND SIGNATURE:
HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE HEMANT M. PRACHCHHAK
================================================================
Approved for Reporting Yes No
================================================================
BHARAT SHAMALDAS SONI & ANR.
Versus
CARGO MOTORS (GUJARAT) PVT. LTD. & ORS.
================================================================
Appearance:
DECEASED LITIGANT THROUGH LEGAL HEIRS/ REPRESENTATIVES for
the Petitioner(s) No. 1
MR TR MISHRA(483) for the Petitioner(s) No. 1.1
MR CJ VIN(978) for the Respondent(s) No. 1,2
RULE SERVED for the Respondent(s) No. 3
================================================================
CORAM:HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE HEMANT M.
PRACHCHHAK
Date : 10/11/2025
ORAL JUDGMENT
1. Present petition is filed by the petitioner under Article 226 &
227 of the Constitution of India read with the provisions of the
Industrial Disputes Act, 1947 (hereinafter be referred to as "the Act")
challenging the judgment and order dated 14.03.2023 passed by the
learned Presiding Officer, Labour Court, Gandhidham, Kutch
(hereinafter be referred to as "the Labour Court") in Recovery
Application No. 05 of 2018, whereby, the learned Judge has partly
allowed the application and directed the respondent to pay sum of
Rs.4,50,110/- to the petitioner.
NEUTRAL CITATION
C/SCA/14073/2023 JUDGMENT DATED: 10/11/2025
undefined
2. Brief facts giving rise to the present petition are that, the
petitioner was the permanent employee of the respondents and was
working at Kutch-Bhuj. That, the services of the petitioner were
terminated and therefore, he raised an industrial dispute, which was
registered as Reference (LCG) No.101/1999, whereby, the Labour
Court passed an Award on 14.02.2008 allowing the reference and
directing the respondent to reinstate the petitioner with full back-
wages and continuity of service. That, the original Award was ex parte
and therefore, an application was filed for restoration of the Award
being MCA No.7 of 2008, which came to be dismissed vide order
dated 22.09.2011. Thereafter, again an application was filed for
restoration of the order dismissing the application, being Application
No.1 of 2013 which was also dismissed vide order dated 13.04.2015.
Thereafter, the respondent filed Special Civil Application No. 6569 of
2016 before this Court praying for quashing and setting aside the
impugned ex parte Award dated 19.03.2008, passed in Reference
(LCG) No.101 of 1999 and the order dated 13.03.2015 passed in MCA
No.1 of 2013 in MCA No.7 of 2008 in Reference (LCG) No.101 of 1999.
That, the said petition came to be dismissed by this Court vide order
dated 09.05.2018. Thereafter, the amount of wages as ordered by the
Labour Court was not paid and therefore, the petitioner was
compelled to file Recovery Application claiming an amount of
Rs.13,48,983-43p. as back-wages from the date of Award till the
petitioner attained supernumerary age. That, the Labour Court passed
order on 14.03.2023, directing the respondent to pay a sum of
Rs.4,50,110/.
3. Being aggrieved and dissatisfied with the aforesaid award dated
14.03.2023 passed by the Labour Court, Gandhidham, Kutch in
Recovery Application No. 05 of 2018, the petitioner has preferred this
NEUTRAL CITATION
C/SCA/14073/2023 JUDGMENT DATED: 10/11/2025
undefined
petition under Article 226 & 227 of the Constitution of India read with
the provisions of Industrial Disputes Act, 1947.
4. When the matter was admitted by this Court on 14.02.2024,
this Court passed the following order :
"1. This petition is filed challenging an award of the Labour Court,
Gandhidham dated 14.03.2023, wherein the petitioner- workman was
awarded an amount of Rs.4,50,110/- towards backwages.
2. Mr.T.R.Mishra, learned advocate for the petitioner submitted that the
backwages awarded of Rs.4,50,110/- is erroneous, since the workman is
entitled for 100% backwages. Pursuant to the award dated 14.03.2023,
respondent-company had deposited amount before the Labour Court and
the same is lying there. Therefore, the petitioner-workman had preferred an
application under section 33(C)(1) of the Act (Annexure "L") seeking
disbursement of the amount, lying before the Labour Court.
3. Learned advocate for the applicant further submitted that since the
petitioner is at present 72 years old and suffers from many ailments and
therefore, he is in need of the amount, deposited with the Labour Court.
Further, in any case, he would be entitled for the same since the
respondent has not challenged the award of the Labour Court dated
14.03.2023. He submitted that in view of pendency of this petition, Labour
Court is not disbursing the amount in favour of the petitioner-workman and
therefore, appropriate order may be passed.
4. On the other hand, Mr.C.J.Vin, learned advocate for respondent could not
dispute the fact that the award of the Labour Court dated 14.03.2023 has
not been challenged by the respondent company and the amount has been
deposited before the Labour Court, Gandhidham.
5. Considered the submissions. This petition is filed seeking 100%
backwages, since Rs.4,50,110/- was awarded towards backwages. Further,
the entitlement of the workman of the amount deposited as awarded under
order dated 14.03.2023, cannot be denied in view of the fact that the
respondent- company has not challenged the award. Considering the same,
Labour Court, Gandhidham is directed to consider the application of the
petitioner-workman preferred under section 33(c)(1) of the Act and to pass
appropriate order as observed hereinabove. Considering the age of the
workman and medical ailments, it is expected that the said application of
the workman shall be decided by the Labour Court within a period of four
weeks from the date of receipt of the order. Issue RULE."
5. Heard Mr. T.R. Mishra, learned counsel appearing on behalf of
NEUTRAL CITATION
C/SCA/14073/2023 JUDGMENT DATED: 10/11/2025
undefined
the petitioner-workman and Mr. C.J. Vin, learned counsel appearing on
behalf of the respondent - Company.
6. Learned counsel Mr. Mishra has submitted that in the earlier
round of litigation, the respondent lost the case and this Court while
dismissing the petition awarded cost of litigation quantifying
Rs.25,000/-. He has submitted that this Court has already concluded
the issue but, while calculating the amount, the Labour Court has
considered last drawn wages as per the provisions of Section 17(B) of
the Act, instead of minimum wages and therefore, there is a
difference of Rs.7,25,156/- as per the summary of backwages which
was discussed by the Labour Court while deciding the recovery
application. He has submitted that during the course of present
proceedings, the petitioner workman died and therefore, civil
application was filed by his mother for recovery of the amount. Over
and above the grounds agitated in the memo of petition, learned
counsel Mr. Mishra has submitted that the present petition be allowed
and the impugned judgment and order dated 14.03.2023 be quashed
and set aside. In support of his submissions, learned counsel Mr.
Mishra has referred and relied upon the decision of the Hon'ble Apex
Court rendered in case of Salim Ali Centre for Ornithology &
Natural History, Coimbatore & Another vs. Dr. Mathew K.
Sebastian, reported in 2022 LiveLaw (SC) 377. He has also
referred and relied upon the decision of this Court rendered in case of
Chief Officer, Mangrol Nagarpalika vs. Yunus Kasambhai
Kalavat in Special Civil Application No. 17409 of 2018.
7. As against that, learned counsel Mr. C.J. Vin, appearing on
behalf of the respondent Company, has opposed the present petition
and submitted that the original workman has died and therefore, right
NEUTRAL CITATION
C/SCA/14073/2023 JUDGMENT DATED: 10/11/2025
undefined
to sue does not survive and thus, the mother of the workman is not
entitled for the amount awarded by the Labour Court and no recovery
can be affected against the present respondent Company. He has
submitted that the amount awarded by the Labour Court is just and
proper and the Labour Court has not committed any error while
passing the impugned judgment and order and therefore, no
interference is required to be called for in the present petition and the
present petition be dismissed.
8. I have heard the learned counsel appearing for the respective
parties and perused the material placed on record. I have also
considered the facts of the present case. It appears from the record
that, the original award was an ex-prate award and therefore, the
respondent Company had moved an application before the Labour
Court to decide bi-partite, which came to be dismissed vide order
dated 22.09.2011. Thereafter, again the respondent Company had
moved an application for restoration of the order dismissing the
aforesaid application, which also came to be dismissed vide order
dated 13.04.2015. Being aggrieved, the respondent Company
preferred a petition before this Court being Special Civil Application
No.6569 of 2016 seeking relief/s as under :
"(A) Your Lordships be pleased to issue a writ of certiorari or any other
appropriate writ, order or direction, quashing and setting aside the
impugned ex parte Award dated 19-3-2008, passed in Reference (LCG)
No.101/1999, passed by respondent No.2 in the interest of justice;
(B) That Your Lordships be pleased to issue a writ of certiorari or any other
appropriate writ, order or direction, quashing and setting aside the
impugned order dated 13-3-2015 in MCA No.1/2013 in MCA No.7/2008 in
Reference (LCG) No.101/1999 passed by the respondent No.2, in the
interest of justice;
(C) Your Lordships pending the admission, hearing and final disposal of this
petition, be pleased to stay the implementation, operation and execution of
NEUTRAL CITATION
C/SCA/14073/2023 JUDGMENT DATED: 10/11/2025
undefined
the impugned ex parte Award dated 19-3-2008 passed in Reference (LCG)
No.101/1999 passed by respondent No.2, in the interest of justice;
(D) Your Lordships pending admission, hearing and final disposal of this
petition, be pleased to stay the recovery proceeding or consequential
proceeding for execution or compliance of the impugned ex parte Award
dated 19-3-2008 passed in Reference (LCG) No.101/1999 passed by
respondent No.2 in the interest of justice;
(E) Your Lordships be pleased to condone the delay in filing this petition;
(F) Your Lordships be pleased to grant such other and further relief as deem
fit in the interest of justice;"
8.1 The aforesaid petition came to be dismissed by this Court vide
order dated 09.05.2018, which became final and the same was not
challenged any further and therefore, on the basis of the order passed
by the Labour Court, the petitioner had preferred the aforesaid
Recovery Application for recovery of the amount from the respondent
and claimed Rs.13,48,982-96ps. as backwages from the date of award
till the petitioner attained the age of superannuation, which came to
be partly allowed and the Labour Court awarded an amount of
Rs.4,50,110/- considering the provisions of Section 17(B) of the Act
and considering the last drawn wages, instead of backwages. Even it
was not as per the minimum wages and therefore, the petitioner has
preferred this petition.
8.2 After considering the submissions canvassed by both the sides
and after considering the decisions referred and relied upon by the
learned counsel Mr. Mishra, the contentions raised by the learned
counsel Mr. Mishra are required to be considered in view of the
decision of the Hon'ble Apex Court in case of K.S. Ravindran vs.
Branch Manager, New India Assurance Company Limited
reported in [2015] 7 SCC 222, more particularly the observations
made in paras-16, 17 and 18, which is referred and relied upon by this
NEUTRAL CITATION
C/SCA/14073/2023 JUDGMENT DATED: 10/11/2025
undefined
Court in case of Chief Officer, Mangrol Nagarpalika (Supra) and
thus, the petitioner-workman is entitled to get backwages, instead of
last drawn wages under the provisions of Section 17(B) of the Act. The
amount of minimum wages at the time of reinstatement till actual
period of reinstatement is required to be calculated and thus, on the
basis of that, the impugned judgment and order passed by the Labour
Court is required to be modified to the extent that the petitioner-
workman is entitled to get an amount of Rs.13,48,982-96ps.
9. For the foregoing reasons, the present petition is partly allowed.
The impugned judgment and order dated 14.03.2023 passed by the
learned Presiding Officer, Labour Court, Gandhidham, Kutch in
Recovery Application No. 05 of 2018 is hereby modified to the extent
that the petitioner-workman is entitled to get an amount of
Rs.13,48,982-96ps. The respondent Company is hereby directed to
pay the amount of Rs.13,48,982-96ps. to the petitioner-workman
within a period of one year from the date of receipt of this order.
Since the petitioner has passed away, the amount shall be paid to his
mother namely, Champaben Shamaldas Adesara, after following due
procedure and after verifying her bank details, through RTGS/NEFT.
Rule is made absolute to the aforesaid extent.
(HEMANT M. PRACHCHHAK,J)
Dolly
