Gujarat High Court
Harshadkumar Manubhai Parmar vs Arvindkumar P. Parikh on 7 July, 2025
Author: A.S. Supehia
Bench: A.S. Supehia
NEUTRAL CITATION
C/LPA/805/2025 ORDER DATED: 07/07/2025
undefined
IN THE HIGH COURT OF GUJARAT AT AHMEDABAD
R/LETTERS PATENT APPEAL NO. 805 of 2025
In R/SPECIAL CIVIL APPLICATION NO. 2315 of 2022
==========================================================
HARSHADKUMAR MANUBHAI PARMAR
Versus
ARVINDKUMAR P. PARIKH & ANR.
==========================================================
Appearance:
MR SUBRAMANIAM IYER(2104) for the Appellant(s) No. 1
ROBIN PRASAD(9344) for the Appellant(s) No. 1
MR DIPAK R DAVE(1232) for the Respondent(s) No. 2
MR YOGI K GADHIA(5913) for the Respondent(s) No. 1
==========================================================
CORAM:HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE A.S. SUPEHIA
and
HONOURABLE MR.JUSTICE R. T. VACHHANI
Date : 07/07/2025
ORAL ORDER
(PER : HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE A.S. SUPEHIA)
1. With the consent, the matter is taken up for final disposal today.
2. The present Letters Patent Appeal emanates from the order dated 22.04.2025 passed in the captioned writ petition being Special Civil Application No. 2315 of 2022, which is decided along with other group of matters.
3. The present Appeal emanates from the original recovery application proceedings, which were filed by the respective employees, total 11 in number, being Recovery Application Nos. 55 of 2016 to 65 of 2016 claiming Minimum Wages, Weekly off, Privilege Leave and Bonus etc., for the period from 01.03.2011 to 22.01.2016, along with interest. 09 Page 1 of 7 Uploaded by MARY VADAKKAN(HC00204) on Fri Jul 11 2025 Downloaded on : Fri Jul 11 23:02:40 IST 2025 NEUTRAL CITATION C/LPA/805/2025 ORDER DATED: 07/07/2025 undefined applications were partly allowed in favour of the employees, whereas 02 were withdrawn. The present respondent challenged the award passed by the Labour Court in individual recovery application.
4. The respondent No.1 was awarded the contract by the respondent No. 2-Adani Gas Ltd. to run CNG pump by an agreement, however, the said contract was terminated in January, 2016. It appears that the employees, who were engaged in the CNG pump, filed a complaint before the Government Labour Officer seeking wages etc., and during which it appears that a settlement was arrived at between the parties, whereby Rs.10,000/- was paid to each of the employees, however, the appellants did not accept the said amount offered to them. Thereafter, they filed a Recovery Application before the Labour Court under Section 33(C)(2) of the Industrial Disputes, Act, 1947 (for short "the I.D. Act") interalia claiming the aforementioned amount from 01.03.2011 to 22.01.2016. The respondent No.1 categorically raised an objection objecting the amount claimed by the present appellant as there was no pre-existing right determined in the favour of appellant - employees. The respondent No.1 disputed the amount claimed by the employees and further clarified about the amount paid under the settlement before the Labour authorities.
5. The Labour Court by the impugned judgments partly allowed the recovery applications of the employees, whereby minimum wages were awarded by the Labour Court to the extent of Rs. 10,000/-, and in light of the settlement, allowed other claims in toto along with 8% interest and Rs. 5000/- towards cost.
Page 2 of 7 Uploaded by MARY VADAKKAN(HC00204) on Fri Jul 11 2025 Downloaded on : Fri Jul 11 23:02:40 IST 2025 NEUTRAL CITATION C/LPA/805/2025 ORDER DATED: 07/07/2025 undefined
6. The same gave rise to filing of the writ petition by the present appellant along with other 09 individuals. The respondent assailed the same by filing the captioned writ petition being Special Civil Application No. 2315 of 2022 raising preliminary objection to the extent that there is no existing right, there was delay in filing the application and since the parties have already reached at a settlement for minimum wages, an alternative remedy is also available under Section 20 of the Minimum Wages Act, 1948 claiming Minimum Wages, weekly off, Privilege Leave and Bonus etc.. The learned Single Judge has allowed the writ petition in part by upholding the award so far as the granting of the Minimum Wages of Rs. 10,000/- is concerned.
7. Learned advocate Mr. Iyer appearing for the appellants has submitted that the judgment and award passed by the learned Single Judge is required to be quashed and set aside as it is not in dispute that the present appellant who was serving under the respondent No.1, was the contractor of the respondent No.2. It is submitted that the learned Single Judge has accepted the liability of payment of minimum wages, and simultaneously rejected the pensionary benefits, bonus Leave Encashment etc. It is submitted that the respondent-Contractual employees are covered under the Shops and Establishment Act, 1948 and he has to pay the aforesaid amount. He has also submitted that there are difference of wages payable under the Minimum Wages Act and the rest of the wages are also required to be paid. It was submitted that in the settlement, which was arrived at between the contractor and the workman, the present appellant has not agreed for settlement of claim of payment of amount of lumpsum of compensation of the amount of Rs. 10,000/- and he has not received the said amount.
Page 3 of 7 Uploaded by MARY VADAKKAN(HC00204) on Fri Jul 11 2025 Downloaded on : Fri Jul 11 23:02:40 IST 2025 NEUTRAL CITATION C/LPA/805/2025 ORDER DATED: 07/07/2025 undefined
8. Learned advocate Mr. Yogi Gadhia for the respondent has submitted that the impugned judgment and award passed by the learned Single Judge may not be interfered with. He has submitted that the learned Single Judge has appropriately observed that the present appellant-employee has remedy of first approaching the Tribunal and only after the adjudication about the claim of the said amount, the said amount is ordered to be paid. It is submitted that the Labour Court has no jurisdiction to entertain the Application filed under Section 33 (C)(2) of the I.D Act and to adjudicate the claims of bonus, leave with wages etc.
9. We have heard the learned advocates appearing for the respective parties at length. The Labour Court in the application filed under the provisions of Section 33(C)(2) of the I.D Act seeking recovery of amount under the different benefits like bonus, leave holidays etc., has directed the respondent to grant the amount. The learned Single in this regard in the captioned writ petition has held as under:
"8. While adjudicating the claim, learned Tribunal has observed that the witness of the petitioner was examined below Exh.30/A, has deposed that the employees were granted the leave holidays and bonus etc. On the basis of this admission, learned Tribunal has proceeded further and held that there is pre-existing right accrued from the said admission. Except the said observation, no reasons assigned by the learned Reference Court accepting the claim with regard to the bonus, leave holidays etc. Reliance on Section 21 of the payment of Bonus Act, which was made by the learned advocate Mr. Gadhia, if one would refer, then it emerges that the employees, on filling the application by the employees claiming the bonus before the appropriate Government, the appropriate Government would adjudicate the claim and if satisfied that money is dues then would issue the certificate for the amount to Page 4 of 7 Uploaded by MARY VADAKKAN(HC00204) on Fri Jul 11 2025 Downloaded on : Fri Jul 11 23:02:40 IST 2025 NEUTRAL CITATION C/LPA/805/2025 ORDER DATED: 07/07/2025 undefined the Collector who shall proceed to recover the same in the manner as an arrears of the land revenue. Admittedly, there is no award or any order passed by the authority adjudicating the claim, which was made by the respondent, the learned Labour Court, while exercising the power under Section 33(C)(2), has allowed the claim made by the respondent without being adjudicated by the authority or without any settlement agreed between the parties. The reference of Section 7, which is made by the learned advocate Mr. Gadhia, wherein it is provided that the appropriate Government, by notification in the Official Gazette, Constitute one or more Labour Courts for adjudication of the dispute relating to the matters specified in 2nd Schedule and for performing such other functions as may be assigned to them under the Act. On referring the 2nd Schedule and 3rd Schedule, it is provided that the claim with regard to the leave with wages, holidays bonus, profit sharing, provident fund and gratuity is to be adjudicated by the learned Tribunal, which is admittedly not done by any Tribunal under the Act, as learned advocate has not disputed the claim with regard to the payment of difference of minimum wages.
9. This Court has referred the decision rendered by the Hon'ble Apex Court in the case of M/s Bombay Chemical Industires v/s. Deputy Labour Commissioner & Anr. reported in 2022 LiveLaw (SC) 130, wherein it is held as under para 6 and 7.
"6. At the outset it is required to be noted that respondent No.2 herein filed an application before the Labour Court under Section 33(C)(2) of the Industrial Disputes Act, demanding difference of wages from 01.04.2006 to 31.03.2012. It was thus the case on behalf of respondent No.2 that he was working with the appellant as a salesman. However, the appellant had taken a categorical stand that respondent No.2 was never engaged by the appellant. It was specifically the case on behalf of the appellant that respondent No.2 had never worked in the establishment in the post of salesman. Therefore, once there was a serious dispute that respondent No.2 had worked as an employee of the appellant and there was a very serious dispute raised by the appellant that respondent No.2 was not in employment as a salesman as claimed by respondent No.2, thereafter, it was not open for the Labour Court to entertain disputed questions and adjudicate upon the employer-employee relationship between the appellant and respondent No.2. As per the settled proposition of law, in an application under Section 33(C)(2) of the Industrial Disputes Act, the Labour Court has no jurisdiction and cannot adjudicate dispute of entitlement or the basis of the claim of workmen. It can only interpret the award or settlement on which the claim is based. As held by this Court in the Page 5 of 7 Uploaded by MARY VADAKKAN(HC00204) on Fri Jul 11 2025 Downloaded on : Fri Jul 11 23:02:40 IST 2025 NEUTRAL CITATION C/LPA/805/2025 ORDER DATED: 07/07/2025 undefined case of Ganesh Razak and Anr. (supra), the labour court's jurisdiction under Section 33(C)(2) of the Industrial Disputes Act is like that of an executing court. As per the settled preposition of law without prior adjudication or recognition of the disputed claim of the workmen, proceedings for computation of the arrears of wages and/or difference of wages claimed by the workmen shall not be maintainable under Section 33(C)(2) of the Industrial Disputes Act.(See Municipal Corporation of Delhi Vs. Ganesh Razak and Anr. (1995) 1 SCC 235). In the case of Kankuben (supra), it is observed and held that whenever a workman is entitled to receive from his employer any money or any benefit which is capable of being computed in terms of money and which he is entitled to receive from his employer and is denied of such benefit can approach Labour Court under Section 33C (2) of the ID Act. It is further observed that the benefit sought to be enforced under Section 33C (2) of the ID Act is necessarily a preexisting benefit or one flowing from a preexisting right. The difference between a preexisting right or benefit on one hand and the right or benefit, which is considered just and fair on the other hand is vital. The former falls within jurisdiction of Labour Court exercising powers under Section 33C (2) of the ID Act while the latter does not.
7. Applying the law laid down by this Court in the aforesaid decisions to the facts of the case on hand, when there was no prior adjudication on the issue whether respondent No.2 herein was in employment as a salesman as claimed by respondent No.2 herein and there was a serious dispute raised that respondent No.2 was never in employment as a salesman and the documents relied upon by respondent No.2 were seriously disputed by the appellant and it was the case on behalf of the appellant that those documents are forged and/or false, thereafter the Labour Court ought not to have proceeded further with the application under Section 33(C)(2) of the Industrial Disputes Act. The Labour Court ought to haverelegated respondent No.2 to initiate appropriate proceedings by way of reference and get his right crystalized and/or adjudicate upon. Therefore, the order passed by the Labour Court was beyond the jurisdiction conferred under Section 33(C)(2) of the Industrial Disputes Act. The High Court has not appreciated the aforesaid facts and has confirmed the same without adverting to the scope and ambit of the jurisdiction of the Labour Court under Section 33(C)(2) of the Industrial Disputes Act."Page 6 of 7 Uploaded by MARY VADAKKAN(HC00204) on Fri Jul 11 2025 Downloaded on : Fri Jul 11 23:02:40 IST 2025
NEUTRAL CITATION C/LPA/805/2025 ORDER DATED: 07/07/2025 undefined
10. Thus, it is not in dispute that there is no prior adjudication with regard to the amount of bonus, Leave Ecashment etc. by the Tribunal. As per the provisions of Section 7A of the I.D Act, the Tribunal has jurisdiction to decide the dispute with regard to the adjudication of the Industrial Dispute relating to the matter which was scheduled in the second schedule or third schedule. The employees like the present appellants are claiming the benefits, which are mentioned in the third schedule, more particularly at item Nos. 3,4 and 5 which pertains to hours of work and rest interval, leave with wages and holidays, bonus, profit sharing, provident fund and gratuity. Unquestionably, in the present case there is no adjudication by the Tribunal under Sections 7A of the I.D. Act. So far as the amount. which has been claimed by the appellant is concerned, the Tribunal while examining the application filed under Section 33(C) (2) of the I.D Act, has directed the respondent to confer such benefits.
11. Hence, we do not find any reason to interfere with the order passed by the learned Single Judge.
11. Under the circumstances, and in light of the foregoing observations, the present Letters Patent Appeal stands rejected.
(A. S. SUPEHIA, J) (R. T. VACHHANI, J) MARY VADAKKAN//13 Page 7 of 7 Uploaded by MARY VADAKKAN(HC00204) on Fri Jul 11 2025 Downloaded on : Fri Jul 11 23:02:40 IST 2025