Gujarat High Court
Vinodbhai Bhanabhai Patel vs Excel Shine Private Limited on 16 June, 2020
Equivalent citations: AIRONLINE 2020 GUJ 478
Author: Vipul M. Pancholi
Bench: Vipul M. Pancholi
C/SCA/17956/2018 CAV JUDGMENT
IN THE HIGH COURT OF GUJARAT AT AHMEDABAD
R/SPECIAL CIVIL APPLICATION NO. 17956 of 2018
With
CIVIL APPLICATION (FOR DIRECTION) NO. 1 of 2019
In R/SPECIAL CIVIL APPLICATION NO. 17956 of 2018
FOR APPROVAL AND SIGNATURE:
HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE VIPUL M. PANCHOLI
==========================================================
1 Whether Reporters of Local Papers may be No
allowed to see the judgment ?
2 To be referred to the Reporter or not ? No
3 Whether their Lordships wish to see the No
fair copy of the judgment ?
4 Whether this case involves a substantial No
question of law as to the interpretation
of the Constitution of India or any order
made thereunder ?
==========================================================
VINODBHAI BHANABHAI PATEL
Versus
EXCEL SHINE PRIVATE LIMITED
==========================================================
Appearance:
MR DIPAK R DAVE(1232) for the Petitioner(s) No. 1
MR CJ VIN(978) for the Respondent(s) No. 1
MR HS MUNSHAW(495) for the Respondent(s) No. 3
NOTICE SERVED BY DS(5) for the Respondent(s) No. 2
==========================================================
CORAM: HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE VIPUL M. PANCHOLI
Date : 16/06/2020
CAV JUDGMENT
1. This petition is filed under Article 226 of the Constitution of India, in which the petitioner has prayed for the following relief/s:
Page 1 of 20 Downloaded on : Tue Jun 16 22:27:36 IST 2020 C/SCA/17956/2018 CAV JUDGMENT"(A) This Hon'ble Court may be pleased to issue a writ of mandamus and/or a writ in the nature of mandamus and/or any other appropriate writ, order or direction to immediately execute Recovery Certificate No.5469/2012 dated 04.12.2012 issued by Labour Court, Valsad and further may be pleased to direct the respondent No.2 to execute the said recovery certificate along with interest;
(B) Pending the admission, hearing and final disposal of this petition, this Hon'ble Court may be pleased to direct respondent Nos. 2 and 3 to submit action taken report which have been undertaken in pursuance to the Recovery Certificate No.5469/2012 dated 04.12.2012;"
2. Looking to the issue involved in the present petition, learned advocates appearing for the parties jointly requested that this petition be finally disposed of at admission stage. Hence, Rule. Learned advocate Mr. C.J.Vin waives service of notice of Rule for respondent No.1 and learned advocate Mr. H.S.Munshaw waives service of notice of Rule for respondent Nos. 2 and 3.
3. Learned advocate Mr. Dipak R. Dave appearing for the petitioner submitted that petitioner is one of the affected employees, who is the beneficiary of Certificate No.5469 of 2012 dated 04.12.2012. The said certificate has been issued by the competent authority for recovery of amount of Rs.1,16,81,102/- along with interest and cost in favour of 32 employees. It is submitted that out of 32 employees, several employees have expired. However, till date, Page 2 of 20 Downloaded on : Tue Jun 16 22:27:36 IST 2020 C/SCA/17956/2018 CAV JUDGMENT the actual dues are not paid to the petitioner and other beneficiaries of the said certificate except the amount of Rs.25 lakh, which was deposited pursuant to the interim order passed by the Hon'ble Division Bench of this Court.
4. At this stage, learned advocate Mr. Dave referred the history of the litigation and pointed out that employees serving in respondent No.1 including the petitioner raised demand for the purpose of seeking certain benefits before the Conciliation Officer. During the pendency of the conciliation proceedings, three union leaders were terminated on 01.11.2002 and therefore protest was made by the employees. However, the respondent No.1 prevented the employees from resuming duties. Against such illegal lockout of respondent No.1 employer, a reference came to be filed by the petitioner and other employees through their union, which came to be referred to the Labour Court, Valsad and the same was registered as Reference (LCVD) No. 2 of 2003. The Labour Court, Valsad passed an Award dated 09.08.2005 and thereby declared the lockout as illegal and direction was given to the respondent No.1 to pay full wages and consequential benefits to all the employees. At this stage, it is submitted that respondent No.1 challenged the said Award by filing Special Civil Application No.24781 of 2005. This Court, initially, stayed the Award on condition to comply the provisions of Section 17B of the Industrial Disputes Act, 1947 (hereinafter referred Page 3 of 20 Downloaded on : Tue Jun 16 22:27:36 IST 2020 C/SCA/17956/2018 CAV JUDGMENT to as the 'ID Act'). However, the said condition was not complied with and therefore petitioner and other employees filed Civil Application No.5140 of 2006. The said Civil Application was allowed vide order dated 28.04.2006. However, the respondent No.1 did not comply with the same and therefore Civil Application No.7264 of 2006 seeking recall of the order dated 28.04.2006 was filed. The said application was rejected and therefore Letters Patent Appeal No. 594 of 2007 was preferred, which was also rejected by the Hon'ble Division Bench. However, in spite of rejection of Letters Patent Appeal, since no payment was made, petitioner and other employees, through union, filed contempt proceedings. However, the said contempt application was withdrawn in view of pendency of the main proceedings and to take out appropriate proceedings.
5. Learned advocate Mr. Dave would further submit that petitioner, through his Union, filed recovery application before the Labour Court. However, the said application was rejected on the ground that the same is not maintainable. Petitioner and others, through union, again filed Civil Application No.8109 of 2009 with prayer to direct the respondent No.1 to comply Section 17B of the I.D. Act or to vacate the stay. This Court passed an order on 29.07.2009 and recorded that on account of disobedience of the order of this Court, the petitioner of the said petition (respondent No.1 herein) is not entitled to any discretionary relief and therefore Special Civil Page 4 of 20 Downloaded on : Tue Jun 16 22:27:36 IST 2020 C/SCA/17956/2018 CAV JUDGMENT Application No.24781 of 2005 was dismissed. The respondent No.1 has not challenged the said order.
6. Learned advocate for the petitioner thereafter contended that petitioner and other employees, through union, filed Recovery Application No.187 of 2009 for enforcement of the Award. Though notice was served to respondent No.1, nobody appeared. Labour Court, thereafter passed an order on 05.09.2012 and directed the respondent No.1 to pay an amount of Rs.1,16,78,623/- in favour of 32 employees including the petitioner herein. Recovery Certificate dated 04.12.2012 was also issued by the Labour Court.
7. It is submitted that thereafter respondent No.1 filed an application under Rule 26-A of the Industrial Disputes (Gujarat) Rules, 1966 (hereinafter referred to as 'the Rules' for short) for recalling of the order dated 05.09.2012. The said application was filed along with an application for condonation of delay. The Labour Court rejected the application vide order dated 30.09.2013. The respondent No.1, therefore, challenged the said order dated 30.09.2013 by filing Special Civil Application No.16051 of 2013 before this Court. The said petition came to be dismissed by this Court vide order dated 26.11.2014. It is submitted that petitioner and others therefore made representation to the respondent authorities for execution of recovery certificate. However, no steps were taken by the respondent authorities for execution of the recovery Page 5 of 20 Downloaded on : Tue Jun 16 22:27:36 IST 2020 C/SCA/17956/2018 CAV JUDGMENT certificate.
8. At this stage, learned advocate Mr. Dave pointed out that respondent No.1 filed Letters Patent Appeal (Stamp Number) No.1624 of 2016 against the order dated 26.11.2014 passed by the learned Single Judge in Special Civil Application No.16051 of 2013. A separate application being Civil Application No.13626 of 2016 was also filed for condonation of delay. It is pointed out that Hon'ble Division Bench of this Court issued notice in the said application on 30.01.2017, on the submission made by learned counsel appearing for the present respondent No.1 that, if a notice is issued, the parties may negotiate and try to find out a way, and to show their bona fide, respondent No.1 herein submitted that Rs.25 lakh will be deposited with the Registry of this Court. This Court, therefore, issued notice for limited purpose and to explore the possibility of settlement with a condition that respondent No.1 herein shall deposit Rs.1 lakh with the Registry and the said amount of Rs.1 lakh deposited towards the probable cost will be paid to the union/workmen irrespective of the outcome of the application. It is submitted that Rs.25 lakhs (Rs.24 lakh + Rs.1 lakh towards cost) was deposited before the Registry of this Court and thereafter the said amount is remitted to the Labour Court and proportionately the same was disbursed to the concerned workmen.
At this stage, it is also contended that thereafter the Hon'ble Division Bench of this Court, Page 6 of 20 Downloaded on : Tue Jun 16 22:27:36 IST 2020 C/SCA/17956/2018 CAV JUDGMENT vide order dated 31.07.2017, rejected the Civil Application (for condonation of delay) in Letters Patent Appeal (Stamp Number) No.1624 of 2016.
9. Learned advocate Mr. Dave would thereafter submit that even after the rejection of the Letters Patent Appeal filed by the present respondent No.1, petitioner and other employees made several representations to the respondent Nos. 2 and 3 and requested to execute the recovery certificate. However, no steps were taken by the respondent Nos. 2 and 3 and therefore petitioner has filed the present petition.
10. On the other hand, learned advocate Mr. Vin appearing for respondent No.1 has referred the affidavit-in-reply filed on behalf of respondent No.1 and mainly contended that this petition is filed by only petitioner in his individual capacity. Recovery Application was filed before the Labour Court through union and the present petition is not filed in representative capacity. It is also submitted that concerned Government Authority passed an order dated 27.05.2003 by which dispute was referred to the Labour Court and thereafter on 05.06.2003, the concerned Government Labour Officer issued notice to the respondent No.1 by which the respondent No.1 was informed that if the employees of the company are not permitted to resume their duties within a period of two days, appropriate proceedings under Section 26(2) of the I.D.Act will be taken against the respondent Page 7 of 20 Downloaded on : Tue Jun 16 22:27:36 IST 2020 C/SCA/17956/2018 CAV JUDGMENT employer. It is submitted that the respondent No.1 filed Special Civil Application No.10434 of 2003 before this Court in which the respondent No.1 had challenged the order dated 27.05.2003 as well as show cause notice dated 05.06.2003 issued by the concerned Government Authority. It is submitted that on 01.09.2003, this Court issued Rule and passed interim order, whereby stay against any action pursuant to the notice dated 05.06.2003 pending the petition, has been granted.
11. Learned advocate Mr. Vin would further submit that in spite of the stay granted by this Court, Reference No.2 of 2003 filed before the concerned Labour Court proceeded further and the Labour Court passed an award on 09.08.2005. Therefore, the Award dated 09.08.2005 passed by the Labour Court cannot be implemented. It is also submitted that Recovery Certificate issued pursuant to the said Award is also not tenable in the eye of law and therefore Recovery Certificate is required to be set aside and this Court may not pass any order in favour of the present petitioner pursuant to the Recovery Certificate.
12. Learned advocate Mr. Vin further contended that initially, Recovery Application No.121 of 2007 came to be filed for the recovery of an amount of Rs.28,10,875/-. However, thereafter another Recovery Application No.187 of 2009 was filed by the Union for recovery of Rs.1,16,78,623/-. Thus, on what basis amount of Rs.1,16,78,623/- is calculated is not clear Page 8 of 20 Downloaded on : Tue Jun 16 22:27:36 IST 2020 C/SCA/17956/2018 CAV JUDGMENT and therefore the Recovery Certificate issued by the concerned authority for recovery of aforesaid amount is without any basis. Hence, the said Recovery Certificate may not be executed. Learned advocate for the respondent No.1, therefore, urged that this petition be dismissed.
13. Learned advocate Mr. Munshaw appearing for the respondent Nos. 2 and 3 has referred various affidavits filed by the respondent authorities and on the basis of the said affidavits it is contended that respondent authorities have taken appropriate steps for execution of the Recovery Certificate issued by the Labour Court. It is contended that from time to time, notices were issued to the respondent No.1. However, respondent No.1 represented time and again that the proceedings are pending before the concerned Labour Court or before this Court and therefore the Recovery Certificate has not been executed. However, there is no negligence or inaction on the part of the respondent authorities. It is, therefore, urged that respondent authorities are ready and willing to execute the Recovery Certificate within stipulated time.
14. Having heard the learned advocates appearing for the parties and having gone through the material placed on record, it would emerge that the petitioner and other employees of respondent No.1 company were not permitted to resume their duties by respondent No.1 by locking them out. The entire dispute qua Page 9 of 20 Downloaded on : Tue Jun 16 22:27:36 IST 2020 C/SCA/17956/2018 CAV JUDGMENT strike being illegal or legal or a lockout being illegal or legal came to be referred to the Labour Court as Reference LCV (Demand) No.2 of 2003. The concerned government authority issued notice on 05.06.2003 to the respondent No.1 and directed that the employees of the respondent No.1 be permitted to resume their duties, otherwise, action will be taken under Section 26(2) of the I.D.Act. The respondent No.1, therefore, filed Special Civil Application No.10434 of 2003 before this Court. In the said petition, respondent No.1 challenged the order dated 27.05.2003 by which the dispute is referred to the Labour Court and the notice dated 05.06.2003. Copy of the order dated 27.05.2003 is placed on record at page 144 of the compilation, whereas, notice dated 05.06.2003 is placed on record at page 145 of the compilation. It is further revealed that in the aforesaid petition i.e. Special Civil Application No.10434 of 2003, on 01.09.2003, this Court passed the following order:
"Heard the learned advocates.
Rule. Learned AGP Mr. L.B Dabhi waives service of rule.
Pending this petition, there shall be stay against any action pursuant to the notice dated 5th June, 2003."
15. Thus, from the aforesaid interim order passed by this Court, it can be said that this Court has granted stay against taking any action pursuant to the notice dated 05.06.2003. It is pertinent to note that the said notice was issued for taking action Page 10 of 20 Downloaded on : Tue Jun 16 22:27:36 IST 2020 C/SCA/17956/2018 CAV JUDGMENT under Section 26(2) of the I.D. Act. Thus, the order dated 27.05.2003 referring the dispute to the Labour Court was not stayed by this Court. Even otherwise, the Award dated 09.08.2005 passed by the Labour Court in Reference (LCVD) No. 2 of 2003 was challenged by the respondent No.1 by filing Special Civil Application No.24781 of 2005. In the said petition, initially, this Court granted stay on condition to comply with Section 17B of the I.D.Act. However, when the said condition was not complied with, the conditional stay granted by this Court was vacated and the petition filed by the respondent No.1 was dismissed. Thus, the Award dated 09.08.2005 passed by the concerned Labour Court has attained finality.
16. It further transpires from the record that the petitioner and other employees, through Union, filed Recovery Application No.187 of 2009 for enforcement of the aforesaid Award. The Labour Court issued notice to the respondent No.1. However, respondent No.1 did not appear before the Labour Court and therefore the Labour Court after a period of approximately three years passed an order on 05.09.2012, whereby the respondent No.1 is directed to pay an amount of Rs.1,16,78,623/- in favour of 32 employees including the petitioner. At this stage, it is pertinent to note that respondent No.1 thereafter filed an application under Rule 26-A of the Rules for recalling of the order dated 05.09.2012 passed by the Labour Court. However, there was delay of 7 months in filing the said application and therefore separate Page 11 of 20 Downloaded on : Tue Jun 16 22:27:36 IST 2020 C/SCA/17956/2018 CAV JUDGMENT application for condonation of delay was filed. The Labour Court rejected the said application for condonation of delay vide order dated 30.09.2013, as the respondent No.1 has failed to explain the delay. The respondent No.1 thereafter challenged the order dated 30.09.2013 passed by the Labour Court by filing Special Civil Application No.16051 of 2013. This Court dismissed the said petition vide order dated 26.11.2014. Against the said order passed by the learned Single Judge, respondent No.1 filed Letters Patent Appeal (Stamp Number) No. 1624 of 2016 along with Civil Application (For Condonation of Delay) No.13626 of 2016. Initially, the Hon'ble Division Bench of this Court issued notice to explore the possibility of settlement as per the request of the learned counsel appearing for the respondent No.1. However, thereafter, the Hon'ble Division Bench, vide order dated 31.07.2017, dismissed the Civil Application filed for condonation of delay. Copy of the said order is placed on record at page 84.
17. It is also reflected from the record that Special Civil Application No.10434 of 2003 filed by the respondent No.1 challenging the order of Reference dated 27.05.2003 and show cause notice dated 05.06.2003 came to be dismissed by this Court vide order dated 21.09.2010. This Court observed in para 2, 3 and 4 as under:
"2. It is reported that after the aforesaid Special Civil Application was filed and as the order passed by the appropriate Page 12 of 20 Downloaded on : Tue Jun 16 22:27:36 IST 2020 C/SCA/17956/2018 CAV JUDGMENT authority dated 27.5.2003 making reference was not stayed, the dispute was referred to the Labour Court, Valsad which was numbered as Reference (LCVD) No.2 of 2003. It is also reported that the Presiding Officer, Labour Court, Valsad by judgment and award dated 9.8.2005 allowed the said reference in favour of the workers. It is reported that, thereafter, the petitioners preferred Special Civil Application No.24781 of 2005 before this Court challenging the aforesaid judgment and award which also came to be dismissed by this Court vide order dated 29.7.2009.
3. In view of the above, when after making of the reference, the judgment and award came to be passed by the Labour Court, Valsad and the same came to be confirmed by this Court, the present petition has become infructuous and nothing further is required to be done.
4. Now, so far as the challenge to the notice issued by the Labour Officer, Valsad dated 5.6.2003 is concerned, it cannot be said that the Labour Officer has committed any illegality and/or issued the said notice without jurisdiction and/or authority. By the aforesaid notice, the petitioners were called upon to lift illegal closure and to reemploy / reinstate the workmen failing which it was observed that penal action shall be taken under Section 26(2) of the Act. It is to be noted that as such the action of the petitioners with respect to illegal closure has been set aside by learned Labour Court, Valsad by judgment and award passed in Reference (LCVD) No.2 of 2003 which has been confirmed by this Court. Under the circumstances, no interference is required by this Court."
18. Thus, from the aforesaid order, it is revealed that this Court has considered the fact that order dated 27.05.2003 passed by the appropriate authority Page 13 of 20 Downloaded on : Tue Jun 16 22:27:36 IST 2020 C/SCA/17956/2018 CAV JUDGMENT making reference was not stayed by this Court and the dispute was referred to the Labour Court, Valsad and the Labour Court passed an Award on 09.08.2005, whereby the reference was allowed in favour of the workers and the said order has been confirmed by this Court and therefore this Court has observed that petition has become infructuous and nothing further is required to be done. Thus, the contention raised by learned advocate Mr. Vin appearing for respondent No.1 that though this Court has granted stay against the order passed by the appropriate authority referring the dispute to the Labour Court, Labour Court has passed the Award and therefore the said Award cannot be implemented, is misconceived. It is not open for the respondent No.1 to contend that Award dated 09.08.2005 passed by the Labour Court is without jurisdiction and the said Award cannot be implemented, especially when the said contention was not accepted by this Court while passing the order dated 21.09.2010 in Special Civil Application No.10434 of 2003 and when the petition being Special Civil Application No.24781 of 2005 challenging the aforesaid Award dated 09.08.2005 has been dismissed by this Court.
19. Learned advocate Mr. Vin appearing for respondent No.1 has also contended that in the Recovery Application No.121 of 2007, the concerned Union has raised the demand of Rs.28,10,875/-. However, after a period of two years, another Recovery Application No.187 of 2009 was filed in Page 14 of 20 Downloaded on : Tue Jun 16 22:27:36 IST 2020 C/SCA/17956/2018 CAV JUDGMENT which the said Union has asked for the recovery of Rs.1,16,78,623/-. Thus, without any basis, Labour Court has passed an order permitting recovery of Rs.1,16,78,623/- and therefore this Court may not execute the said Recovery Certificate. However, this Court is of the view that the aforesaid contention taken by the learned advocate for the respondent is also misconceived. It is pertinent to note at this stage that though served, respondent No.1 did not appear before the Labour Court in the said recovery proceedings filed by the union. The application filed under Rule 26-A of the Rules for recalling of the order dated 05.09.2012 along with application for condonation of delay was also dismissed by the Labour Court on 30.09.2013. The said order was challenged by the respondent No.1 by filing petition being Special Civil Application No.16051 of 2013. Learned Single Judge dismissed the said petition against which Letters Patent Appeal (Stamp Number) No.1624 of 2016 was filed along with civil application for condonation of delay and the Hon'ble Division Bench of this Court rejected the said application filed for condonation of delay. Thus, the order dated 05.09.2012 passed by the Labour Court in Recovery Application No.187 of 2009 has attained finality. Thus, it is not open for the respondent No.1 to challenge the calculation in the present petition, which is filed by the petitioner for execution of the Recovery Certificate.
20. Petitioner is one of the beneficiaries of Page 15 of 20 Downloaded on : Tue Jun 16 22:27:36 IST 2020 C/SCA/17956/2018 CAV JUDGMENT Recovery Certificate No.5469 of 2012 dated 04.12.2012 issued by the Labour Court and it is specifically stated that out of 32 employees, some of the employees have expired.
21. It is pertinent to note that this Court directed the respondent No.1 to deposit an amount of Rs.90,82,000/- within stipulated time. The said amount is deposited by the respondent No.1 with the Registry of this Court. Moreover, vide order dated 29.11.2019 passed in this petition, this Court observed as under:
"9. So far as amount of Rs. 90,82,000/- is concerned, the original petitioners -
beneficiaries under the recovery
certificate shall furnish their
necessary details with bank details to the Registry of this Court, which shall verify those details and place the report before this Court on or before 17.12.2019. The legal heirs of those beneficiaries who have passed away, are also permitted to pursue their claims."
22. Thereafter, the Registry of this Court has received copies of the Aadhar Cards, Bank Passbooks and in case of death of the concerned workman, death certificate. On 05.02.2020, the Court passed the following order:
"The report of the office is received, which states that amount of Rs.90,82,000/- is already deposited and invested on 29/11/2019. The registry has also received Page 16 of 20 Downloaded on : Tue Jun 16 22:27:36 IST 2020 C/SCA/17956/2018 CAV JUDGMENT copy of the Adhar Cards, Bank Pass Books and in case of death of any of the workmen, Death Certificate.
Mr.Dipak Dave, learned advocate appearing for all the workmen assures that the original documents shall be presented and/or concerned employees shall remain present with original I.D. as and when so directed. Matter to appear on 14/2/2020 in first 10 matters."
23. Thus, from the interim orders passed by this Court in the present petition, it is clear that relevant documents of all the claimants/employees are received by the Registry of this Court. Further, it is pertinent to note that the award dated 09.08.2005 passed by the Labour Court has attained finality. Similarly, order dated 05.09.2012 passed by the Labour Court in Recovery Application No.187 of 2009 has also attained finality. On the basis of the Recovery Certificate, the respondent authorities are duty bound to recover the amount stated in the Recovery Certificate from the respondent No.1. In spite of that the respondent authorities have not taken sufficient steps for execution of the Recovery Certificate. No doubt various affidavits are filed by the respondent authorities so as to justify their stand by pointing out that notices were issued to the respondent No.1 from time to time. However, the fact remains that though Recovery Certificate is issued in the year 2012, till date, the said Recovery Certificate has not been executed.
24. It is not in dispute that an amount of Rs.25 lakh was deposited by the respondent No.1 pursuant to Page 17 of 20 Downloaded on : Tue Jun 16 22:27:36 IST 2020 C/SCA/17956/2018 CAV JUDGMENT the order dated 30.01.2017 passed by the Hon'ble Division Bench of this Court in Civil Application (For Condonation of Delay) No.13626 of 2016 in Letters Patent (Stamp Number) No. 1624 of 2016 and the said amount is disbursed amongst the beneficiaries of the Recovery Certificate on pro rata basis. It is also not in dispute that pursuant to an interim order passed by this Court, the respondent No.1 has deposited an amount of Rs.90,82,000/- before the Registry of this Court. The said interim order is accepted by respondent No.1. Hence, the said amount is also required to be disbursed amongst the beneficiaries of the Recovery Certificate on pro rata basis.
25. At this stage, the contention raised by learned advocate Mr. Dipak R. Dave appearing for the petitioner is required to be considered. It is contended that as per the order dated 30.01.2017 passed by the Hon'ble Division Bench of this Court in Civil Application (For Condonation of Delay) No.13626 of 2016 in Letters Patent (Stamp Number) No. 1624 of 2016, the respondent No.1 was required to deposit Rs.25 lakh towards the Recovery Certificate and Rs. 1 lakh by way of cost. Thus, instead of amount of Rs. 26 lakh, respondent No.1 had deposited Rs.25 lakh (Rs.24 lakh towards Recovery Certificate and Rs. 1 lakh towards cost). Thus, respondent No.1 may be directed to deposit Rs.1 lakh before the Registry of this Court within a period of four weeks from today.
Page 18 of 20 Downloaded on : Tue Jun 16 22:27:36 IST 2020 C/SCA/17956/2018 CAV JUDGMENT26. In view of the aforesaid submission, respondent No.1 is directed to deposit Rs.1,00,000/- (Rupees One Lakh Only) before the Registry of this Court within a period of 2 (two) weeks from today. Moreover, the amount of Rs.90,82,000/- (Rupees Ninety Lakh Eighty- two Thousand Only) with accrued interest, if any, lying with the Registry of this Court shall be remitted along with Rs.1,00,000/- to the concerned Labour Court in Recovery Application No.187 of 2009 so that the concerned Labour Court may pass an appropriate order of disbursement of the same to the concerned workmen as per the terms of Recovery Application No.187 of 2009. The Registry shall complete the aforesaid exercise within a period of 3 weeks. The Labour Court shall complete the aforesaid exercise within a period of 6 (six) weeks from the date of receipt of the aforesaid amount from the Registry of this Court.
27. So far as interest is concerned, the respondent Nos. 2 and 3 are hereby directed to calculate the amount of interest to be paid to the beneficiaries of Recovery Application No.187 of 2009 from the date of passing of the order dated 05.09.2012 till the date on which the respondent No.1 has deposited the amount of Recovery Certificate before this Court (on two occasions), at the prevalent rate of interest to be paid on Fixed Deposit Receipts by the Nationalized Bank. The respondent Nos. 2 and 3 are also directed to recover the said amount from the respondent No.1 and deposit the same before the concerned Labour Page 19 of 20 Downloaded on : Tue Jun 16 22:27:36 IST 2020 C/SCA/17956/2018 CAV JUDGMENT Court within a period of eight weeks from the date of receipt of this order. The concerned Labour Court on receipt of amount from Respondent Nos. 2 and 3 shall disburse the same amongst the beneficiaries of Recovery Certificate No.187 of 2009 on pro rata basis within a period of six weeks.
28. With the aforesaid observations and directions, petition is allowed in the aforesaid terms. Rule is made absolute accordingly.
(VIPUL M. PANCHOLI, J) After the judgment is pronounced, learned advocate Mr. C.J. Vin appearing for respondent No.1 has requested that this order be stayed for a period of four weeks. However, the said request is rejected because this Court has granted sufficient time to the Registry to remit the amount to the Labour Court and thereafter Labour Court is directed to disburse the amount to the concerned beneficiaries within a period of six weeks after the receipt of the amount from the Registry of this Court. Hence, the request made by learned advocate Mr. C. J. Vin appearing for respondent No.1 is not entertained and the same is rejected.
(VIPUL M. PANCHOLI, J) Jani/SRILATHA Page 20 of 20 Downloaded on : Tue Jun 16 22:27:36 IST 2020