1. In this petition, under Article 226 of the Constitution of India, the petitioner Modasa Nagarpalika has challenged the order passed by the Labour Court, Himmatnagar, by which, the Recovery Application No.25 of 2015 dated 10.10.2012 was allowed.

2. Briefly stated, facts are that the respondent was working as a plumber with the petitioner Modasa Nagarpalika. It appears that his services were terminated in the year 2005 which gave rise to an industrial dispute. In the pending reference, the Nagarpalika entered into settlement by passing a resolution on 26.09.2012. Contents of the resolution indicate that both the parties i.e. Nagarpalika and workman agreed that the workmen will let go his back-wages and as and when Nagarpalika calls the workman for re-engagement, the Nagarpalika would reengage him on the days when there is work. As per this resolution which was placed on record by way of pursis before the Labour Court, the reference was disposed of on 10.10.2010 in light of this settlement. While disposing of the reference, the Labour Court observed that work will be allowed to the employee-respondent herein in accordance with the seniority position.

3. Aggrieved by this observation, the Nagarpalika approached the Labour Court by way of a review which was rejected on 14.08.2013. The Nagarpalika challenged the same by filing Special Civil Application No.7624 of 2014 which was dismissed by an order dated 21.08.2014. A Letters Patent Appeal was filed by the Nagarpalika which was also disposed of with a clarification that the seniority of the respondent workman shall be counted with effect from 26.09.2012 i.e. the date on which the resolution was passed. Pending these proceedings, the respondent employee was reinstated with the Nagarpalika on 12.03.2015.

4. The respondent filed a Recovery Application No.25 of 2015 on 23.11.2015 indicating that though a resolution was passed on 26.09.2012, the Nagarpalika did not reinstate the employeeworkman and it was only on 12.03.2015 that in compliance of the award of the Labour Court in light of the settlement, the respondent was reinstated. The Labour Court by the impugned order under recovery was of the opinion that despite a settlement arrived at since only in the year 2015 was the employee reinstated, the workman was entitled to the benefits for the period between 26.09.2012 and 12.03.2015 and ordered payment of Rs.1,89,060/- under the provisions of Section 33(C)(2) of the Industrial Disputes Act.

5. Mr.Vijay Nangesh learned advocate for the petitioner would assail the order of recovery on the following grounds:

4.1 Reading the language of the resolution dated 26.09.2012, Mr.Nangesh would submit that the resolution was clear inasmuch as the workman would not be entitled to back-wages and as and when the respondent would comeforth for reinstatement he would be offered work as and when the work is available. Admittedly, though having failed before this Court even on the question of being awarded seniority with effect from 26.09.2012, the Labour Court clearly fell in error in granting the benefits under recovery from 03.11.2012 to 12.03.2015. He would submit that the Labour Court misinterpreted the Resolution No.10 and could not have awarded recovery of amount of the years from 2012 to 2015 when the workman came forth for a job only in 2015.

6. Mr.Mansuri would support the order of the Labour Court by reading the findings thereof.

7. Reasoning of the Labour Court in the recovery order under challenge would portray the following:

(I) The respondent – workman aggrieved by his termination had approached Labour Court by filing a reference in the year 2005.

(II) The Municipality and the workman entered into a settlement by virtue of the resolution passed by the Nagarpalika on 26.09.2012 to the effect that the workman shall forego back-wages and will be reinstated as and when called for work.

(III) A pursis was filed accordingly and the Labour Court on 10.10.2010 disposed of the reference regarding the pursis, however, adding that the seniority of workman will be treated from 26.09.2012. Challenge to the modification of that condition at the hands of the Nagarpalika failed. The order passed by the coordinate bench of this Court in Special Civil Application No.7624 of 2018 dated 21.08.2014 reads as under:

“4. Having heard learned advocate for the petitioner and having gone through the material on record, this Court finds that the Municipality and the concerned workman had agreed for reinstatement with denial of total back wages, and the award was passed on the said lines by the Labour Court. The Municipality had no reason to be aggrieved by the said award. The grievance that the seniority ought not to have been protected, can not be accepted. The Labour Court did not commit any error while recording award that the seniority of the workman will be protected. Further, the way in which the review application is handled on behalf of the petitioner Municipality, and the reasons which are recorded by the Labour Court further go to show that, the settlement, as projected before the Labour Court was less for implementation, more for derailing the proceedings. Considering the totality, no interference is required in any of the orders passed by the Labour Court.”

8. On an appeal filed before the Division Bench, the Division Bench in Letters Patent Appeal No.458 of 2015 dated 20.04.2015, observed as under:

“5 In view of the above, the present appeal is disposed of by confirming the order of the learned Single Judge in Special Civil Application No.7624 of 2014. However, it is clarified that the seniority of the respondentworkman shall be counted with effect from 26thSeptember 2012. The service conditions of the respondent-workman will not be changed in any manner whatsoever.

No order as to costs.”

9. Reading the order makes it apparently clear that not only did the Division Bench observe that the seniority of the respondent shall be counted with effect from 26.09.2012, but the service conditions of the respondent workman will not be changed in any manner whatsoever. It was recorded in the order that pending the appeal, the respondent workman was reinstated and work was being provided to him.

10. Following things therefore emerge from the sequence of events referred to herein above. Post the resolution of 26.09.2012, the Labour Court passed an order on 10.10.2012. The Municipality in its zeal to pursue the litigation, challenged the order of rejection of the review before this Court and the Coordinate Bench of this Court has respectfully observed that the petition is filed more to derail the proceedings and less for implementation. This petition also appears to be an attempt to do so inasmuch as, an attempt is made in the course of arguments to relook and reinterpret a resolution of settlement which had become final by the disposal of the proceedings before the Labour Court and by way of finding of the Division Bench in appeal. A settlement in October 2012 saw light of the day only when the respondent was reinstated on 10.03.2015 when his right accrued right from the date when the settlement was arrived at and the Labour Court in light of such settlement, disposed of the proceedings on 10.10.2012. No fault can be found with the findings in the award of the Labour Court in the recovery proceedings and granting the benefits to the respondent workman for the period from 03.11.2012 to 12.03.2015.

11.The petition is accordingly dismissed with an observation that the benefits shall accrue out of this petition to the respondent. The respondent since deceased, the benefits accruing shall be paid to the heirs of the deceased-respondent within a period of six weeks from the date of receipt of copy of this order.