Oral Judgment

1. Present petition is filed 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 11 th of 2006 by learned Labour Court, Rajkot;

          (B) Pending the admission, hearing and final disposal of this petition, this Hon'ble Court may be pleased to stay the execution, implementation and operation of impugned award dated 11 th 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 fit, 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 modified to the extent and the petition deserves to be allowed.

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 modified 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 modified 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.