Gautam Dewasi vs Ambuja Cements Ltd. ...
2023 Latest Caselaw 7404 Raj

[2023:RJ-JD:30708-DB]

HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE FOR RAJASTHAN AT JODHPUR D.B. Spl. Appl. Writ No. 634/2023 Gautam Dewasi S/o Shri Bhaga Ram, Aged About 30 Years, R/o Village- Balada, Tehsil- Jaitaran, District - Pali (Raj.).

----Appellant Versus

1. Ambuja Cements Ltd., Unit Rabriyawas, Post D.l.f., Rabriyawas Tehsil Jaitaran District Pali Rajasthan Through Its Manager (Legal) And Power Of Attorney Holder Rajvijay Singh Rathore S/o Shri Chhaviraj Singh, Aged 42 Years, R/o Ambuja Township, Village Rabriyawas, Tehsil Jaitaran, District Pali, Rajasthan.

2. M/s Jain Carrying Corporation, Jain House, Rani Bazar, Bikaner, Rajasthan Pin - 334001.

         ----Respondents


For Appellant(s)              :    Mr. Vikram Singh
For Respondent(s) :                Mr. Nitin Ojha

             HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE VIJAY BISHNOI

HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE YOGENDRA KUMAR PUROHIT

Order

20/09/2023

1. This intra court appeal has been filed by the appellant being

aggrieved with the judgment dated 11.07.2023 passed by

the learned Single Judge in S.B. Civil Writ Petition

No.12761/2020, whereby the learned Single Judge has

allowed the writ petition filed on behalf of respondent-

Ambuja Cement Ltd.

2. Brief facts of the case are that the appellant and other

similarly situated workmen were deployed as casual labours

by the contractor, respondent No.2 to work in the factory of

the respondent No.1-Company.

[2023:RJ-JD:30708-DB] (2 of 5) [SAW-634/2023]

3. A tripartite settlement came to be executed between the

respondent No.1-company, respondent No.2-Contractor and

the appellant along with other similarly situated workmen

and according to the said settlement, the engagement of

the appellant and other similarly situated workmen came to

an end after paying total sum of Rs.4,02,685/- being ex

gratia gratuity amount along with other legal dues. As per

said settlement, the appellant and other similarly situated

workmen have received full and final payment and their

engagement with the respondent No.1-Company and

respondent No.2, Contractor came to an end.

4. Later on, the appellant and similarly situated workmen

raised an industrial dispute, however, after failure of the

conciliation proceedings, the claim petitions were filed

before the labour court by the appellant and other similarly

situated workmen.

5. Before the labour court, the respondent No.1-Company

moved an application under Section 29 of the Industrial

Disputes Act, 1947 (hereinafter referred to be as 'the Act of

1947') with a prayer that the appellant and similarly

situated workmen may be directed to refund the amount

along with interest, if they are desirous to continue with the

proceedings before the labour court. The labour court vide

order dated 28.07.2020 has dismissed the aforesaid

applications.

6. Being aggrieved with the said order of the Labour Court, the

respondent-company has preferred writ petitions against all

workmen including the appellant. The learned Single Judge

[2023:RJ-JD:30708-DB] (3 of 5) [SAW-634/2023]

has allowed the writ petitions while relying on the decision

rendered by the Hon'ble Supreme Court in the case of

Ramesh Chandra Sankla Etc. Vs. Vikram Cement Etc.

reported in 2008 AIR SCW 7923 and in Man Singh Vs.

Maruti Suzuki India Ltd. And Anr., reported in 2012 AIR

SCW 2488 and ordered that the impugned proceedings

pending before the labour court be kept in abeyance with

liberty to the appellant and other workmen to deposit the

amount received by them along with interest @ 6% per

annum by way of demand draft in the name of the

respondent No.1-Company. It is further ordered that the

interest will be calculated for the period commenced from

the date of receiving the amount till the date of amount

being deposited before the labour court. It is further

observed that all those cases, where the amount in original

along with interest @ 6% is deposited by the appellant and

other workmen on or before 31 st December, 2023, the

labour court shall continue with the proceedings in their

claim, however, if the amount along with the interest is not

deposited by any of the workmen by 31 st of December,

2023, the proceedings before the labour court initiated at

their instance shall stand annulled.

7. Learned counsel for the appellant has submitted that so far

as the directions of learned Single Judge of depositing the

original amount received pursuant to the tripartite

settlement, the appellant has no grievance against the

same. However, the direction given by the learned Single to

deposit the interest @ 6% on the received amount is not

[2023:RJ-JD:30708-DB] (4 of 5) [SAW-634/2023]

tenable. Learned counsel has submitted that the Hon'ble

Supreme Court in Man Singh's case (supra) has waived

the said condition of depositing interest amount while

treating it as onerous. Learned counsel for the appellant

has submitted that the appellant is out of job since 2016

and it would be very difficult for him to deposit the original

amount received pursuant to the tripartite settlement along

with interest and, therefore, the condition of depositing

interest on original amount may be waived.

8. Learned counsel for the respondents has opposed the writ

petition and argued that in the facts and circumstances of

the case, the learned Single Judge has not erred in directing

the appellant to deposit the original amount along with

interest at the rate of 6% per annum.

9. Having heard learned counsel for the parties, we are of the

opinion that the learned Single Judge has not committed

any illegality in directing the appellant and other workmen

to deposit the original amount received under the tripartite

settlement along with interest @ 6% per annum.

10. It is to be noticed that the appellant and other similarly

situated workmen while filing their claims before the labour

court have prayed that the respondent i.e. Ambuja Cement

Company and the Contractor be directed to pay certain

amount along with the interest. If they are demanding

interest on the amount demanded in the claim petitions, it

cannot be said to be unreasonable to ask them to deposit

the amount received by them in terms of tripartite

settlement, from which they are not satisfied, along with

[2023:RJ-JD:30708-DB] (5 of 5) [SAW-634/2023]

interest in case they want to continue with the proceedings

before the Labour Court.

11. The learned Single Judge has rightly distinguished the case

of Man Singh (supra) as the same is passed in different

circumstances.

12. In view of the above discussion, we do not find any merit in

this special appeal and the same is dismissed as such.

13. Stay petition also stands dismissed.

(YOGENDRA KUMAR PUROHIT),J (VIJAY BISHNOI),J

43-Babulal/-

Powered by TCPDF (www.tcpdf.org)