IN THE HIGH COURT OF GUJARAT AT AHMEDABAD R/SPECIAL CIVIL APPLICATION NO. 14951 of 2025 FOR APPROVAL AND SIGNATURE: HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE HEMANT M. PRACHCHHAK ============================================================== Approved for Reporting Yes No ============================================================== SWAROOPSINH ARJUNSINH PARMAR Versus THE DISTRICT COLLECTOR & ORS. ============================================================== Appearance: MR UT MISHRA(3605) for the Petitioner(s) No. 1 MS SWEETY SAMARA AGP for the Respondent(s) No. 1 MR DIPAK R DAVE(1232) for the Respondent(s) No. 2 NOTICE SERVED for the Respondent(s) No. 4 NOTICE THROUGH SPEED POST NOT RECEIVED BACK for the Respondent(s) No. 3 ============================================================= CORAM:HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE HEMANT M. PRACHCHHAK Date : 05/03/2026 JUDGMENT 1. RULE returnable forthwith. Learned counsels for the respondents waives service of notice of rule on behalf of the respective respondents. With the consent of the learned counsels for the respective parties, the present petition is taken up for nal hearing today. 2. Present petition is led by the petitioner under Articles 226 and 227 of the Constitution of India read with the provision of section 33(c)(1) of the Industrial Disputes Act, 1947 seeking p. 1 following reliefs: “(A) That Your Lordships be pleased to issue an order, direction and/or writ in the nature of mandamus and/or any other appropriate writ, order or direction, directing the District Collector, respondent no.1 to immediately execute the Recovery Certi&cate dated 2-1-2025 and be pleased to direct the District Collector to deposit the said amount before the Labour Court, Nadiad; (B) That Your Lordships be pleased to direct the Labour Court, to disburse the amount by account payee cheque in the name of the petitioner after proper veri&cation; (C) Any other and such further relief as the Hon’ble court deems &t and proper in the interest of justice;” 3. Brief facts giving rise to the present petition are that, the petitioner was working under the Contractor - Design Private Ltd. in the Thermal Power Station of Gujarat State Electricity Corporation Ltd. against whom there is no order passed by Labour Court, but according to the provisions of Section.21 of the Contract Labour (Regulation & Abolition) Act, if contractor fails to pay the wages then it is the duty of the principal employer and therefore, Gujarat State Electricity Corporation Ltd. is joined as party respondent no.2 to this petition. That, the petitioner had approached Labour Court, Nadiad by ling Recovery Application u/s 33(c)(2) of the I.D.Act, being Recovery Application No.59/2021 in Reference (LCN) No. 15/2014, which came to be allowed by the Labour Court and the respondent management was directed to pay a sum of Rs.2,99,624/- to the petitioner. That, as the order passed by Labour Court in Recovery Application No.59/2021 was not complied with, the petitioner p. 2 again led Recovery Application u/s.33(c)(1) of the I.D.Act. being Recovery Application No.69/2023 which came to be allowed vide order dated 27.09.2024. Thereafter, the Labour Court had issued Recovery Certicate dated 02.01.2025. That, despite receiving two representations from the petitioner, the District Collector had till date not taken any e:ective steps to execute the Recovery Certicate dated 02.01.2025 passed by the Labour Court. Being aggrieved by the same, the petitioner has led the present petition. 4. Heard Mr. UT Mishra, learned counsel for the petitioner and Ms. Sweety Samara, learned counsel for respondent No.1, Mr. Dipak Dave, learned counsel for respondent No. 2. Perused the materials available on record. 5. Having heard leamed counsel for the respective parties and considered the submissions made by both the sides, it appears that it is the contention on the part of the petitioner that the workman was working under the Contractor and no order was passed against the principal employer-Gujarat State Electricity Corporation Ltd and as per Section 21 of the Contract Labour (Regulation and Abolition) Act, if contractor fails to pay the wages then it is the duty of the principal employer to pay the same. It is also appears that the petitioner approached Labour Court by ling Recovery Application under Secton 33(c)(1) of the Industrial Disputes Act, which was allowed and directed the respondent - management to pay the amount and though the order passed by the Labour Court in Recovery Application, the order was not complied with and thus, the petitioner again led Recovery Application, which was allowed and thereafter, the p. 3 Labour Court issued recovery certicate. It is further contended that the petitioner made representation before the District Collector to execute the recovery certicate, but the District Collector has not taken any steps to recover the amount and, therefore, the petitioner made another representation, however, till date, the District Collector has not taken any steps to execute the recovery certicate and not recovered the amount as per the recovery certicate. That respondent No.2 is the principal employer, the amount of recovery is to be satised by respondent-District Collector and it is open for respondent- District Collector to recover the said amount from respondents No.3 and 4 as security and other payment is with respondent- District Collector and, therefore, from the said amount, amount of recovery as directed by the Labour Court be paid to the workman. 6. In view of the above, it is open for respondent-District Collector to recover the said amount from respondents No.3 and 4. In case security and other deposits of respondent Nos.3 and 4 are pending with respondent No.2, it is open for the respondent No.2 to deposit the said amount with the respondent-District Collector. From the said amount of recovery, an amount as directed by the Labour Court shall be paid to the concerned workman, which shall be deposited before the Labour Court, Nadiad after proper verication of the identity and bank details through RTGS / NEFT. After verifying the bank details of the workman, the amount shall be disbursed in favour of the workman. It is further claried that the said amount if paid by respondent-Gujarat State Electricity Corporation Ltd on behalf of respondents No.3 and 4, from the dues which are with p. 4 respondent-GSECL, the respondent No.2 shall be indemnied for the said payment. 7. With the aforesaid conclusion, the petition is partly allowed. Rule is made absolute to the aforesaid extent. (HEMANT M. PRACHCHHAK,J) ANUSRI p. 5 Original copy of this order has been signed by the Hon'ble Judge. Digitally signed by: ANUSRI VASU(HC02352), ENGLISH STENO GRADE-II\, at High Court of Gujarat on 13/03/2026 17:15:50