Gujarat High Court
Dhoraji Nagarpalika vs Batukbhai Jethabhai Bagada on 9 October, 2025
NEUTRAL CITATION
C/SCA/13063/2025 JUDGMENT DATED: 09/10/2025
undefined
IN THE HIGH COURT OF GUJARAT AT AHMEDABAD
R/SPECIAL CIVIL APPLICATION NO. 13063 of 2025
FOR APPROVAL AND SIGNATURE:
HONOURABLE MRS. JUSTICE M. K. THAKKER
==========================================================
Approved for Reporting Yes No
==========================================================
DHORAJI NAGARPALIKA
Versus
BATUKBHAI JETHABHAI BAGADA
==========================================================
Appearance:
MR.PRATIK KHUBCHANDANI with MR DEEP D VYAS(3869) for the
Petitioner(s) No. 1
==========================================================
CORAM:HONOURABLE MRS. JUSTICE M. K. THAKKER
Date : 09/10/2025
ORAL JUDGMENT
1. The present petition has been filed to challenge the
order passed by the learned Labour Court, Rajkot, in
Recovery Application No. 34 of 2018, whereby the
petitioner has been directed to pay the outstanding
wages amounting to Rs. 2,59,613/-, along with the cost
of the award assessed at Rs. 2,001/- and interest at the
rate of 6% per annum from the date of filing of the
NEUTRAL CITATION
C/SCA/13063/2025 JUDGMENT DATED: 09/10/2025
undefined
application, i.e., 02.06.2018.
2. It is the case of the present petitioner that the
respondent was employed as a Sweeper with the
petitioner-Nagarpalika since 01.02.1997. His services
were allegedly terminated on 10.02.2000. The said
termination was challenged by the respondent by raising
an industrial dispute, which came to be referred to the
learned Labour Court, Rajkot, as Reference (LCR) No.
246 of 2009. The Labour Court, vide award dated
31.03.2016, allowed the reference in favour of the
respondent and directed the petitioner to reinstate the
respondent with 40% back wages and costs of Rs.
2,001/-. Upon publication of the award on 07.04.2016,
the respondent approached the petitioner-Nagarpalika
for resumption of duty on 26.04.2016. However, the
respondent was not permitted to join duty. Thereafter,
claiming unpaid wages under the Minimum Wages Act
from 07.05.2016 i.e., upon completion of 30 days from
the date of publication of the award the respondent
initiated recovery proceedings under Section 33(C)(2) of
the Industrial Disputes Act, 1947(hereinafter referred to
as the "ID Act"), on 02.06.2018, seeking recovery of 24
NEUTRAL CITATION
C/SCA/13063/2025 JUDGMENT DATED: 09/10/2025
undefined
months' unpaid wages. The learned Labour Court
allowed the said application and directed the petitioner
to pay the outstanding amount along with interest.
Aggrieved by the grant of interest, the petitioner has
preferred the present petition
3. Heard, learned advocate Mr. Pratik Khubchandani for
the petitioner.
4. Learned Advocate Mr. Khubchandani has submitted that
the proceedings initiated under Section 33(C)(2) of the
ID Act, are not maintainable in the present case, as the
said provision operates in the nature of an executing
court. It is further submitted that the award passed by
the learned Labour Court was challenged by way of
Special Civil Application No. 18510 of 2016 along with
allied matters before this Court, wherein the award
granting 40% back wages was quashed. Learned
advocate Mr. Khubchandani has further contended that
there exists no pre-existing right with respect to the
claim for interest, and hence, the learned Labour Court
exceeded its jurisdiction in awarding interest at the rate
of 6% per annum. In support of this submission, he has
relied upon the judgment of this Court rendered in
NEUTRAL CITATION
C/SCA/13063/2025 JUDGMENT DATED: 09/10/2025
undefined
Special Civil Application No. 14634 of 2019, wherein it
was held that any additional monetary claim beyond the
scope of a pre-existing right falls outside the purview of
Section 33(C)(2) of the of the ID Act. Therefore, the
impugned order, to the extent it grants interest, is liable
to be quashed and set aside. Learned advocate Mr.
Khubchandani has also placed reliance on the judgment
of the Apex Court in the case of Municipal
Corporation of Delhi v. Ganesh Razak & Anr.,
reported in (1995) 1 SCC 235, wherein it was held that
the jurisdiction under Section 33(C)(2) of the ID Act is
akin to that of an executing court, and it does not extend
to adjudication of disputes pertaining to entitlement or
the basis of the workman's claim. The provision merely
enables interpretation of an existing award or
settlement. Without prior adjudication or recognition of
the dispute, claim of workman cannot be entertained
and therefore, it is prayed to allow the petition by
setting aside the impugned order. Learned advocate Mr.
Khubchandani has also referred to a judgment delivered
by the Hon'ble Allahabad High Court in a similar factual
matrix, where the Hon'ble Allahabad High Court has set
NEUTRAL CITATION
C/SCA/13063/2025 JUDGMENT DATED: 09/10/2025
undefined
aside the order passed by the learned Labour Court,
Agra granting interest at the rate of 18%. In view of the
above submissions, learned Advocate Mr. Khubchandani
prays that considering the overall facts, the impugned
order deserves to be interfered with by allowing the
petition filed by the present petitioner.
5. Upon consideration of the submissions advanced by the
learned advocate and upon perusal of the records, it
emerges that an application under Section 33(C)(2) of
the ID Act was filed on 02.06.2018, seeking recovery of
unpaid wages for the period from 07.05.2016 to
31.05.2018. The claim is premised on the contention
that, pursuant to the award passed by the learned
Labour Court on 31.03.2016 directing reinstatement,
and upon publication of the said award on 07.05.2016,
the respondent became entitled to wages upon the
completion of 30 days from the date of publication of the
award, i.e., from 07.06.2016 onwards. It was further
alleged that although the respondent reported for duty
on 26.04.2016, the petitioner failed to permit him to
resume work. As a result, the respondent sought
recovery of unpaid wages amounting to Rs.2,59,613.13/-
NEUTRAL CITATION
C/SCA/13063/2025 JUDGMENT DATED: 09/10/2025
undefined
along with interest at the rate of 9% per annum. In
support of his claim, the respondent placed on record a
detailed calculation sheet reflecting the applicable
minimum wages during the relevant period and the
benefits flowing from the award, which had attained
finality in his favour. It is an undisputed fact that the
writ petition filed by the petitioner challenging the said
award was partly allowed, and the portion of the award
granting 40% back wages was quashed directing the
petitioner to reinstate the respondent within a period of
four weeks from the date of receipt of the order, i.e., 21
December 2017, however, the facts remain that the
respondent was not reinstated within the time stipulated
by this Court. Significantly, the respondent has not
raised any claim in the present recovery proceedings
instituted under Section 33(C)(2) of the Industrial
Disputes Act, 1947, in respect of the back wages that
were set aside this Court. Although in the memo of the
present petition, the petitioner has challenged the entire
order passed by the learned Labour Court, during the
course of arguments, the challenge was confined
specifically to the aspect of interest awarded. It is
NEUTRAL CITATION
C/SCA/13063/2025 JUDGMENT DATED: 09/10/2025
undefined
pertinent to note that the claim itself pertains to unpaid
wages as per the applicable minimum wages, and
therefore, the petitioner has rightly restricted its
challenge to the issue of interest alone. It is further
submitted that the mechanism provided under Section
33(C) of the ID Act is in the nature of execution
proceedings, either under sub-section (1), which
pertains to recovery of amounts quantified in an award
or settlement, or under sub-section (2), which permits a
workman to claim any money or benefit capable of being
computed in terms of money from the employer. Thus,
the scope of adjudication under Section 33(C)(2) of the
ID Act does not extend to disputes involving new
entitlements, including the grant of interest, unless such
right is pre-existing or flows directly from the award or
settlement .
5.1. It is submitted that the provisions of Section 33(C)(2)
of the ID Act, do not expressly provide for the grant of
interest. In support of this contention, reliance is placed
on a judgment of the Hon'ble Allahabad High Court,
wherein the dispute pertained to payment of pensionary
benefits, which the learned Labour Court had directed to
NEUTRAL CITATION
C/SCA/13063/2025 JUDGMENT DATED: 09/10/2025
undefined
be paid along with interest at the rate of 18%. On
referring the said decision, on attributing the delay to
the employee in that case, the Bench set aside the order
to the extent it awarded interest, holding that such grant
was beyond the scope of Section 33(C)(2). However, the
facts of the present case are materially different. Here,
the respondent reported for duty promptly on
26.04.2016, immediately after the publication of the
award on 07.04.2016. Despite this, the petitioner failed
to permit the respondent to resume duty. Therefore, the
delay in compliance with the award cannot be attributed
to the respondent. This Court has also referred to the
judgment rendered in Special Civil Application No.
9560 of 2017, wherein, while allowing the respondent's
claim for interest, it was observed that in a contract of
employment, the obligation to pay salary as and when it
falls due is implied. Consequently, for wrongful
withholding of such payments, interest at a reasonable
rate ought to be awarded. The said judgment was
carried in appeal before the Division Bench in Letters
Patent Appeal No. 747 of 2021, where the Division
Bench did not interfere with the order passed by the
NEUTRAL CITATION
C/SCA/13063/2025 JUDGMENT DATED: 09/10/2025
undefined
learned Single Judge in the said Special Civil
Application. The appeal was ultimately disposed of by
way of a consensual order granting a lump sum amount
towards full and final settlement. Further, this Court has
placed reliance on the judgment of the Hon'ble Delhi
High Court in Life Insurance Corporation of India v.
Union of India, rendered in Civil Writ No. 1543 of
1989, wherein it was held that even if interest is not
awarded by the learned Labour Court in an application
under Section 33(C)(2) of the ID Act, such relief may be
granted in exercise of writ jurisdiction under Article 226
of the Constitution of India, and interference with such
direction is not warranted.
5.2. This court has also relied on the decision rendered by
Apex court, in the case of Mahadeolal Kanodia Versus
The Administrator General Of West Bengal reported
in AIR 1960 SC 936, wherein it is held that a single
judge differing from decision of another single judge in a
previous question is a question of law, wherein it is held
that judicial decorum no less than legal propriety forms
the basis of judicial procedure. It is the quality of
certainty, and that quality would totally disappear, if
NEUTRAL CITATION
C/SCA/13063/2025 JUDGMENT DATED: 09/10/2025
undefined
judges of coordinate jurisdiction in High Court, start
overruling one another's decision.
6. In light of the above principles and the facts of the
present case, this Court does not find it appropriate to
interfere with the order passed by the learned Labour
Court granting interest at the rate of 6% per annum
from the date of the application .
7. Resultantly, this petition being devoid of merits is
dismissed.
(M. K. THAKKER,J)
NIVYA A. NAIR
