DIVISIONAL CONTROLLER v. VASANTBHAI RANCHODBHAI BUDDHDEV
SCA/9576/2020 · 2025-12-03
Hemant M Prachchhak
body2025
DailyLaw.ai
[ 2025 DAILYLAW 7321 (GUJ) · dailylaw.ai ]
DailyLaw.ai
[ 2025 DAILYLAW 7321 (GUJ) · dailylaw.ai ]
Judgment text
Extracted from the PDF above. The PDF is authoritative.
C/SCA/9576/2020 JUDGMENT DATED: 03/12/2025 IN THE HIGH COURT OF GUJARAT AT AHMEDABAD R/SPECIAL CIVIL APPLICATION NO. 9576 of 2020
FOR APPROVAL AND SIGNATURE:
HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE HEMANT M. PRACHCHHAK ========================================== Approved for Reporting Yes No -- No ========================================== DIVISIONAL CONTROLLER Versus VASANTBHAI RANCHODBHAI BUDDHDEV & ANR. ========================================== Appearance: MR HAMESH C NAIDU(5335) for the Petitioner(s) No. 1 RULE SERVED for the Respondent(s) No. 1,2 ==========================================
CORAM:HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE HEMANT M. PRACHCHHAK
Date : 03/12/2025
ORAL JUDGMENT
1. Present petition is 0led by the petitioner under Articles 226 and 227 of the Constitution of India for the following reliefs:- (A) This Hon’ble Court may be pleased to issue a writ of certiorari and/or a writ in the nature of certiorari and/or any other appropriate writ, order or direction to quash and set aside the directive of cost as passed in impugned award dated 11th December 2019 in Recovery Application No. 378 of 2006 by learned Labour Court, Rajkot; (B) Pending the admission, hearing and 3nal disposal
C/SCA/9576/2020 JUDGMENT DATED: 03/12/2025 of this petition, this Hon’ble Court may be pleased to stay the execution, implementation and operation of impugned award dated 11th December 2019, qua costs as imposed by learned Labour Court, Rajkot in Recovery Application No. 378 of 2006. (C) Any other and further relief or reliefs to which this Hon’ble Court deemed 3t, in the interest of justice, may kindly be granted.
2.
Facts of the present case are that the respondent – employee had preferred recovery application dues from the petitioner – Corporation, which came to be rejected by the Labour Court vide
order dated 11.12.2019, despite of that the Labour Court has imposed cost of Rs.25,000/- upon the petitioner.
3. Being aggrieved by the award passed by the Labour Court, the petitioner has preferred the present petition.
4. Heard Mr.H. C. Naidu, learned counsel for the petitioner at length. Though served, nobody appears on behalf on behalf of the respondents – authorities. Perused the material on record.
6. Mr.Naidu, learned counsel for the petitioner has submitted the same facts which are narrated in the memo of petition and also submitted that the Labour Court has committed an error of facts and law in passing the impugned order and in imposing the cost upon the Corporation. He has submitted that the directive order has been passed suo moto without any pleadings to the application. He has submitted that the impugned order deserves to be quashed and set aside and/or the same deserves to be modi0ed to the extent and the petition deserves to be allowed.
C/SCA/9576/2020 JUDGMENT DATED: 03/12/2025
7. Having heard learned counsel for the petitioner and considered the facts of the case and perused the impugned order passed by the Labour Court, it appears that the respondent – employee preferred an recovery application, which came to be rejected by the Labour Court and imposed cost of Rs.25,000/- upon the petitioner. On perusal of the
order passed by the Labour Court, this Court is of the opinion that the cost awarded by the Labour Court deserves to be reduced and the impugned order deserves to be modi0ed to the extent. The amount which is to be deposited by the Corporation before the concerned Court as circumstances narrated in the memo of this petition and hence, this Court is of the opinion that the petition deserves
consideration.
8. In view of the aforesaid facts and circumstances of the case, the petition is partly allowed. The impugned order passed by the Labour Court is modi0ed to the extent that the petitioner shall deposit the cost of Rs.10,000/- instead of Rs.25,000/- before the concerned Court within a period of four weeks from the date of receipt of the copy of this order. Rule is made absolute to the aforesaid extent.
(HEMANT M. PRACHCHHAK,J) V.R. PANCHAL Original copy of this order has been signed by the Hon'ble Judge. Digitally signed by: VIJAYKUMAR RAMESHBHAI PANCHAL(HC00171), PRINCIPAL PRIVATE SECRETARY, at High Court of Gujarat on 03/12/2025 17:03:25