Bombay High Court
M/S. ARIHANT FABRICS THR. ITS PARTNER AKSHAY KIRAN SHAHversusSHANTARAM KUNDLIK WATHORE
- Decided
- Disposal
- Disposed Off
Holding
The award is modified to a lump‑sum compensation of Rs 10,00,000 in lieu of reinstatement and back‑wages, and the recovery certificate is set aside.
Summary
The petitioner, Arihant Fabrics, challenged a Labour Court award that ordered the reinstatement of the respondent with back‑wages from December 2011. During the hearing the parties agreed that the respondent would accept a lump‑sum settlement of Rs 10,00,000 as full and final compensation. The High Court, on the parties' request, modified the award to reflect this settlement, directed payment within four weeks, and stayed the attachment proceedings against the petitioner. The court also set aside the recovery certificate issued by the Industrial Court on 20 December 2024. Consequently, the writ petition was partly allowed and disposed of.
Issues considered
- Whether a Labour Court award directing reinstatement and back‑wages can be converted into a lump‑sum settlement by mutual agreement of the parties
- Whether the High Court can modify the award and set aside the recovery certificate issued by the Industrial Court
- Whether the attachment proceedings against the petitioner can be stayed pending payment of the settlement
Subjects
- labour law
- industrial dispute
- reinstatement
- back wages
- lump‑sum settlement
- award modification
- writ petition
- High Court
Judgment
Sonali Mane 3-WP-11514-2026.docx
IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY
CIVIL APPELLATE JURISDICTION
WRIT PETITION NO. 11514 OF 2026
M/S. Arihant Fabrics Thr. Its
Partner Akshay Kiran Shah … Petitioner
Versus
Shantaram Kundlik Wathore … Respondent
Mr. Raju Suryawanshi, for the Petitioner.
Mr. A. S. Rao for the Respondent.
CORAM : SANDEEP V. MARNE, J.
DATE : 1 OCTOBER 2026.
P.C. :
1) The Petition challenges the Award dated 11 April 2022 passed
by the Labour Court, Thane in Reference (IDA) No. 22 of 2014, by which
Petitioner is directed to reinstate the Respondent with full back-wages
and continuity of service from 25 December 2011. As hearing of the
Petition progressed, the parties have agreed for an arrangement for
payment of lump-sum compensation of Rs.10,00,000/- to the
Respondent as full and final settlement. Accordingly, on 1 September
2026 following order is passed:
1) Prima facie, this Court is not inclined to interfere in the impugned
order since Mr. Arvind Narsingh Shah and Mr. Kiran Narsingh Shah had
appeared before the Labour Court by engaging an Advocate.
Digitally
signed by
MANE
MANE SONALI
SONALI DILIP
DILIP Date:
2026.10.03
___Page No.1 of 2___
11:04:15
+0530
1 October, 2026
Sonali Mane 3-WP-11514-2026.docx
2) This Court suggested to the parties that the impugned Award passed
by the Labour Court can be converted into an order for payment into
lumpsum compensation of Rs. 10 lakh. Both the parties are aggreable to
the suggestion.
3) Mr. Suryawanshi, the learned counsel appearing for the Petitioner, on
instructions, submits that compensation of Rs. 10 lakh shall be paid to
the Respondent within period of four weeks. Statement is accepted as
undertaking given to the Court. Accordingly, the action initiated by the
Tehsildar for attachment for sale of properties of the Petitioner shall
stand deferred till the next date of hearing.
4) List the Petition under caption 'for directions', on 1 October 2026
before which, the Petitioner shall pay to the Respondent compensation
of Rs. 10 lakh.
2) Mr. Suryawanshi, the learned counsel appearing for Petitioner
submits that an amount of Rs.10,00,000/- has been paid by the
Petitioner to the Respondent on 1 October 2026. Mr. Rao, the learned
counsel appearing for Respondent confirms this position.
3) Accordingly, the Award dated 11 April 2022 is modified by
directing that Respondent is entitled to lump-sum compensation of
Rs.10,00,000/- in lieu of reinstatement and back-wages. Since the
compensation is already paid, the order passed by the Industrial Court
on 20 December 2024 issuing the recovery certificate is set aside.
4) Writ Petition is accordingly partly allowed in above terms and
disposed of.
[SANDEEP V. MARNE, J.]
___Page No.2 of 2___
1 October, 2026
Checking your session…
Lawyer court records for this case
Associated through the court’s case reference.