Gujarat High Court
Babubhai Ramjibhai Dabhi vs Truetzschler India Private Limited on 20 March, 2023
C/SCA/17459/2022 ORDER DATED: 20/03/2023
IN THE HIGH COURT OF GUJARAT AT AHMEDABAD
R/SPECIAL CIVIL APPLICATION NO. 17459 of 2022
==========================================================
BABUBHAI RAMJIBHAI DABHI
Versus
TRUETZSCHLER INDIA PRIVATE LIMITED
==========================================================
Appearance:
MR. ANANTANAND J SINGH(10046) for the Petitioner(s) No. 1
PRABHATSINH J PARMAR(7996) for the Petitioner(s) No. 1
MR KEYUR GANDHI, NISARG DESAI, PRAVALIKHA BHATHINI for
GANDHI LAW ASSOCIATES(12275) for the Respondent(s) No. 1
==========================================================
CORAM:HONOURABLE MRS. JUSTICE MAUNA M. BHATT
Date : 20/03/2023
ORAL ORDER
1. This petition is filed challenging the common order passed below Exh.9 application dated 19.5.2022, in pending reference being Reference (L.C.A) No.377 of 2010, wherein, the Labour Court, Ahmedabad allowed the interim application preferred by respondent company below Exh.9 and directed the petitioner to deposit the amount received from respondent company as full and final settlement towards VRS within 30 days before the Labour Court, failing which, Reference would be rejected automatically without reference to the Court.
2. The facts in brief are that on the ground of forcibly taken VRS, the petitioner along with other workmen raised Page 1 of 7 Downloaded on : Thu Mar 23 20:37:51 IST 2023 C/SCA/17459/2022 ORDER DATED: 20/03/2023 Industrial Dispute which is pending adjudication before the Labour Court being Reference (L.C.A) No.377 of 2010. It is case of the petitioner and other workmen before Labour court that they were compelled to take VRS and therefore, the termination of their service by respondent Company under the pretext of VRS scheme is illegal.
3. On the ground of forcibly taken VRS, first a complaint was made before Assistant Labour Commissioner on 7.12.2009 alleging that the respondent Company had forcefully taken resignation in the form of VRS scheme and, therefore, it is nothing but termination in violation of Section 25G and 25H of the Industrial Dispute Act, 1947 ("the Act" for short).
4. Pursuant to the said complaint and on failure of settlement, the Assistant Labour Commissioner referred the dispute to Labour Court, Ahmedabad under Section 10(1)(C) of the Act. The said reference as noticed earlier is pending adjudication before the Labour Court.
5. During the pendency of the above Reference, the respondent Company filed an application below Exh.10 dated 14.6.2018, seeking direction to the petitioner for depositing the amount received by the petitioner paid towards VRS scheme in order to continue the Reference, wherein the resignation given Page 2 of 7 Downloaded on : Thu Mar 23 20:37:51 IST 2023 C/SCA/17459/2022 ORDER DATED: 20/03/2023 towards VRS scheme was challenged on the ground of forceful termination and coercion. The Labour Court under order dated 19.5.2022, directed the present petitioner to deposit the amount paid towards VRS within a period of 30 days from the date of order. Aggrieved by the said order, the present petition is filed.
6. Heard Mr. Anantanand Singh, learned advocate for the petitioner and Mr. Keyur Gandhi, learned advocate for the respondent.
7. Before adverting to contentions on merits, Mr. Singh appearing for the petitioner submitted that this Court on 30.1.2023 had passed the following order:
"At the request of learned advocate for the petitioner, stand over to 28.02.2023 so as to enable the petitioner to seek instructions as to whether the monetary benefits that the petitioner has received on account of VRS can be re-deposited by the petitioner in consonance with the decision of the Apex Court."
Further, order dated 28.2.2023 reads as follows:
"Learned advocate for the petitioner submits that pursuant to the order passed on 30.1.2023, Page 3 of 7 Downloaded on : Thu Mar 23 20:37:51 IST 2023 C/SCA/17459/2022 ORDER DATED: 20/03/2023 he could not get the appropriate instructions. He, therefore, prays for more time to take instructions. In the interest of justice, matter is adjourned to 20.03.2023.
It is clarified that on that day, matter shall be proceeded further, irrespective of the instructions received by him."
7.1 Mr. Singh, learned advocate for the petitioner today upon instructions submitted that the amount received by the petitioner under VRS Scheme is not possible to be deposited because it was received in the year 2018. Since more than 5 years have passed, the present petitioner is not in a position to re-deposit the amount as observed under order dated 19.5.2022. He further submitted that even application seeking production of documents has not been considered by the Labour Court in the pending Reference. Relying upon the decision of Hon'ble Supreme Court in the case of Saint Gobain Sekurit India Ltd. vs. Kuyesh Durjan Yadav & Ors. reported in 2015 SCC online Bom. 6777, he submitted that though the power to direct pre-deposit exists, however, the said directions would depend upon facts of each case and various parameters would therefore come in play. In the present case, as stated earlier, since considerable time has passed after receipt of amount, it cannot be expected from the present petitioner to re-deposit the amount and, therefore, the order passed by Page 4 of 7 Downloaded on : Thu Mar 23 20:37:51 IST 2023 C/SCA/17459/2022 ORDER DATED: 20/03/2023 Labour Court being erroneous deserves consideration.
8. On the other hand, learned advocate Mr. Keyur Gandhi for respondent relied upon the decision of Hon'ble High Court of Bombay in the case of Phulabai Pawar and Ors. vs. SKF India Ltd. and Ors. reported in 2016 SCC online Bom. 10721 and submitted that the order passed by the Labour Court directing pre-deposit cannot be faulted with.
8.1. Further the amount paid under the voluntary retirement scheme was a lump-sum amount which the petitioner has accepted and, on that count, there is no severance of relationship of employer and employee. However, as the petitioner is questioning the payment made towards VRS scheme, he is not entitled to retain the same amount and, therefore, equity demands that the direction given to re-deposit the amount pending adjudication of reference is just and proper.
9. Having heard learned advocates for the respective parties and having considered the facts of the present case, it is noticed that the Labour Court under order dated 19.5.2022 by detailed reasoning has observed that the petitioner accepted an amount of Rs.4,75,360/- towards full and final settlement of VRS and a cheque dated 13.3.2009 along with the gratuity Page 5 of 7 Downloaded on : Thu Mar 23 20:37:51 IST 2023 C/SCA/17459/2022 ORDER DATED: 20/03/2023 amount of Rs.1,28,120/- was credited to his account. The Labour Court further relying upon the decision of the Hon'ble Supreme Court in the case of Ramesh Chandra Sankla Etc vs Vikram Cement Etc reported in (2008) 14 SCC 58 and the decision of Man Singh vs Maruti Suzuki India Ltd.& Anr. reported in (2011) 14 SCC 662 has observed that if, for any reason if the workman is challenging the VRS scheme on the ground that the petitioner is not in acceptance of the same, then he has to deposit the said amount before the Labour Court. In the present case likewise, it is not in dispute that the amount of Rs.4,75,360/- towards VRS scheme and gratuity amount of Rs.1,28,120/- has been accepted by the present petitioner. In such circumstances, I am emboldened by the decisions referred herein above by the Labour Court and consequently, equity demands that since the petitioner has challenged the action of the Respondent Company of forcibly taken VRS, the amount of VRS and gratuity already received is required be redeposited before the Labour court. Therefore, I find no merit in the submissions of the petitioner that since the amount has been deposited in the year 2018, he is not in a position to re-deposit the same. Further, his ancillary argument of the Labour Court not accepting an application filed by him for production of documents pending Reference, not being a subject matter of challenge in the present proceedings, does not warrant any finding.
Page 6 of 7 Downloaded on : Thu Mar 23 20:37:51 IST 2023C/SCA/17459/2022 ORDER DATED: 20/03/2023
10. In view of the above, the present petition lacks merits and deserves to be dismissed and is accordingly dismissed. Consequentially, the common order dated 19.5.2022 passed by the Labour Court below Exh.9 application stands confirmed. There shall be no order as to costs.
(MAUNA M. BHATT,J) NAIR SMITA V. Page 7 of 7 Downloaded on : Thu Mar 23 20:37:51 IST 2023