Gujarat High Court
Decd Mafatlal Fatechand Shah Through ... vs Mujkuva Doodh Utpadak Sahakari Mandali ... on 9 September, 2025
NEUTRAL CITATION
C/SCA/12457/2025 JUDGMENT DATED: 09/09/2025
undefined
IN THE HIGH COURT OF GUJARAT AT AHMEDABAD
R/SPECIAL CIVIL APPLICATION NO. 12457 of 2025
FOR APPROVAL AND SIGNATURE:
HONOURABLE MRS. JUSTICE M. K. THAKKER
==========================================================
Approved for Reporting Yes No
==========================================================
DECD MAFATLAL FATECHAND SHAH THROUGH AJITKUMAR MAFATLAL
SHAH
Versus
MUJKUVA DOODH UTPADAK SAHAKARI MANDALI LTD. & ANR.
==========================================================
Appearance:
ROBIN PRASAD(9344) for the Petitioner(s) No. 1
==========================================================
CORAM:HONOURABLE MRS. JUSTICE M. K. THAKKER
Date : 09/09/2025
ORAL JUDGMENT
1. The present petition is filed under Articles 226 and 227
of the Constitution of India, challenging the order dated
05.06.2024 passed by the learned Labour Court, Anand,
in Recovery Application No. 12 of 2020, filed under
Section 33(C)(2) of the Industrial Disputes Act, 1947
(hereinafter referred to as the 'ID Act'), as well as the
order dated 17.12.2024 passed in Delay Application No.
NEUTRAL CITATION
C/SCA/12457/2025 JUDGMENT DATED: 09/09/2025
undefined
2 of 2024 in the aforesaid Recovery Application. By the
said orders, the learned Labour Court has rejected the
claim of the present petitioner for recovery of unpaid
provident fund dues.
2. It is the case of the present petitioner that the
petitioner's father resigned from service on 31.01.1989.
At that time, a sum of ₹24,000/-, lying in his provident
fund account, remained unpaid. In order to claim the
said amount towards provident fund, gratuity, and
overtime allowances, an application under Section 33(C)
(2) of the Industrial Disputes Act, 1947, came to be filed
on 17.12.2020. Upon adjudication of the claim, the
learned Labour Court granted an amount of ₹11,094/-
towards the remaining provident fund but without
awarding any interest thereon. Subsequently, an
application for clarification, along with Delay Application
No. 2 of 2024, came to be filed, contending that the
learned Court had erred in not awarding interest on the
aforesaid amount and that such interest ought to have
been granted in favour of the present petitioner.
However, the learned Labour Court, vide its order dated
17.12.2024, rejected the said application, which is
NEUTRAL CITATION
C/SCA/12457/2025 JUDGMENT DATED: 09/09/2025
undefined
subject matter of challenge before this Court.
3. Heard learned advocate Mr.Robin Prasad for the
petitioner.
4. Learned advocate Mr. Prasad submits that, indisputably,
the amount lying in the provident fund account of the
petitioner's father at the time of his resignation from
service on 31.01.1989 was paid only in the year 2024.
However, the learned Labour Court, instead of directing
payment of the said amount along with interest, has
merely directed the respondent to pay the remaining
principal amount of ₹11,094/-. It is therefore submitted
that the impugned order, to the extent it denies interest
on the delayed payment, is erroneous and deserves to be
set aside, and the present petition is liable to be allowed.
5. Having considered the submissions advanced by the
learned advocate for the petitioner and upon perusal of
the record, it emerges that the father of the petitioner
resigned from service on 31.01.1989. At that time, a
criminal complaint had been lodged against him under
Sections 407 and 477A of the Indian Penal Code. Upon
his acquittal in the said criminal proceedings, a claim
was filed seeking payment of gratuity, overtime wages,
NEUTRAL CITATION
C/SCA/12457/2025 JUDGMENT DATED: 09/09/2025
undefined
and provident fund dues. During the pendency of the
application filed under Section 33(C)(2) of the Industrial
Disputes Act, 1947, the claim towards gratuity was
withdrawn. The learned Labour Court, upon
adjudication, held that there was no pre-existing right in
respect of the claim for overtime wages and, therefore,
declined to grant any amount under that head. It is
further not in dispute that out of the total provident fund
amount of ₹24,000/-, a sum of ₹12,906/- was paid to the
father of the petitioner in February 1989, while the
remaining amount had been deposited with the Mandli,
but was not withdrawn. The application under Section
33(C)(2) came to be filed after a delay of 20 years and
334 days. In view of the said delay, while allowing the
application to the limited extent, the learned Labour
Court directed the respondent authority to pay only the
remaining principal amount of ₹11,094/-, without
awarding any interest. This Court is of the considered
view that, given the inordinate delay in filing the
application, the Labour Court was justified in not
awarding interest on the delayed payment. No infirmity
is found in the impugned order warranting interference
NEUTRAL CITATION
C/SCA/12457/2025 JUDGMENT DATED: 09/09/2025
undefined
in exercise of powers under Articles 226 and 227 of the
Constitution of India. Accordingly, the petition deserves
to be dismissed.
6. Resultantly, this petition is dismissed.
(M. K. THAKKER,J)
NIVYA A. NAIR
