Bombay High Court
JYOTI SHAM KELUSKARversusDISTRICT COLLECTOR NASHIK AND ORS
- Decided
- Disposal
- Disposed Off
- Bench
- AMIT BORKAR
Holding
The Court held that the Competent Authority erred in jurisdiction by not first determining the existence of a settlement, award, or applicable right, and therefore quashed the orders.
Summary
Premium Tools Private Limited and others challenged a series of orders issued by the Competent Authority under Section 33C(1) of the Industrial Disputes Act, 1947, which granted recovery certificates. The petitioners argued that the Authority had exceeded its jurisdiction because it did not first establish the existence of a settlement, award, or a right under Chapters V‑A or V‑B before issuing the certificates. The respondent union relied on a 2019 representation alleging a settlement and contended that no further adjudication was required. The Court held that the Authority must first determine whether such a settlement or award exists, as this is a jurisdictional prerequisite for invoking Section 33C(1). Consequently, the Court quashed the impugned orders and remanded the matter to the Competent Authority for fresh adjudication within a stipulated time, disposing of all related writ and contempt petitions.
Issues considered
- Whether the Competent Authority had jurisdiction to issue recovery certificates under Section 33C(1) of the Industrial Disputes Act without first ascertaining the existence of a settlement, award, or a right under Chapter V‑A or V‑B.
Legislation cited
- Industrial Disputes Act, 1947 — s. 33C(1), Chapter V-A, Chapter V-B
Subjects
- Industrial Disputes Act
- Section 33C
- Recovery certificate
- Jurisdiction
- Settlement
- Award
- Writ petition
- Quashing order
- Remand
Judgment
20-wp3496-2025 & Connected.doc
AGK
IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY
CIVIL APPELLATE JURISDICTION
WRIT PETITION NO.3496 OF 2025
WITH
WRIT PETITION NO.1261 OF 2023
Premium Tools Private Limited & Ors. … Petitioners
V/s.
Assistant Labour Commissioner,
Nashik & Ors. … Respondents
WITH
ATUL
INTERIM APPLICATION NO.4032 OF 2023
GANESH IN
KULKARNI
Digitally signed by
ATUL GANESH
KULKARNI
WRIT PETITION NO.1261 OF 2023
Date: 2026.01.23
14:38:12 +0530
Prabhakar Jibhau Khairnar & Ors. … Applicants
In the matter between
Premium Tools Private Limited & Ors. … Petitioners
V/s.
Assistant Labour Commissioner,
Nashik & Ors. … Respondents
WITH
CONTEMPT PETITION NO.256 OF 2022
Santosh Narayan Pandharekar … Petitioner
V/s.
District Collector, Nashik & Ors. … Respondents
WITH
WRIT PETITION NO.8314 OF 2024
Jyoti Sham Keluskar … Petitioner
V/s.
District Collector, Nashik & Ors. … Respondents
WITH
WRIT PETITION (ST.) NO.15787 OF 2024
1
20-wp3496-2025 & Connected.doc
Premium Tools Pvt. Ltd. & Ors. … Petitioners
V/s.
District Collector, Nashik & Ors. … Respondents
Mr. Arjun Amanchi with Mr. Vinay Kadam i/by
Amanchi Legal & Co., for the petitioners.
Ms. Jane Cox i/by Mr. Ajinkya Jaibhave for respondent
No.6-Nashik Workers Union.
Mr. S.B. Deore for intervenors/applicants in
IA/4032/2023.
Smt. Mamta S. Srivastava for State in WP/3496/2025.
Mr. P.V. Nelson Rajan for State in WP/1261/2023,
IA/4023/2023, and CP/256/2022.
Smt. S.D. Chipade for State in WP/8314/2024.
Ms. Savina R. Crasto for State in WPST/15787/2024.
Mrs. Ketaki Kaustubh Khare, Government Labour
Officer, Office of the Deputy Commissioner of Labour,
Nashik, is present
CORAM : AMIT BORKAR, J.
DATED : JANUARY 23, 2026
P.C.:
1. Since all these writ petitions raise the same legal issue and
arise from similar facts, it is convenient to deal with them together.
For that reason, this Court proceeds to decide all petitions by a
single common order.
2. The petitioners have questioned the legality of the orders
dated 7 February 2020, 27 July 2021, 1 April 2022, 3 March 2023,
and 30 August 2024 passed by the Competent Authority. These
orders were passed under Section 33C(1) of the Industrial
2
20-wp3496-2025 & Connected.doc
Disputes Act, 1947. According to the petitioners, the Authority
travelled beyond its jurisdiction while issuing recovery certificates
under the said provision.
3. The main submission advanced for the petitioners is that
respondent No.6, who initiated proceedings under Section 33C(1),
did not point out any settlement or Award in his application.
Further, while issuing the certificates, the Authority did not refer to
any settlement, Award, or rights conferred under Chapter V-A or V-
B of the Act. The petitioners submit that without identifying the
nature of the right and without first adjudicating whether such
right exists, the Authority could not have mechanically issued
recovery certificates. It is argued that Section 33C(1) can be
applied only where there is a pre-existing and undisputed right
arising from a settlement, Award, or under Chapter V-A or V-B. In
absence of such findings, the impugned certificates suffer from
error of jurisdiction.
4. On the other hand, learned counsel for respondent No.6
relied on a representation dated 12 December 2019, which was
submitted to the Authority. This representation mentions a
settlement said to have been entered into between respondent
No.6 and the petitioners. It is argued that this settlement forms the
basis of the claim. According to respondent No.6, the Authority
was not required to conduct any further adjudication and was
entitled to proceed under Section 33C(1).
5. Upon considering the rival submissions and the material
placed before this Court, it becomes evident that the Authority did
3
20-wp3496-2025 & Connected.doc
not examine a basic jurisdictional aspect. The Authority was
required to first determine whether there existed any settlement or
Award or any right flowing from Chapter V-A or V-B. This
determination goes to the root of the matter. Without such
satisfaction, the Authority could not assume that the requirements
of Section 33C(1) stood fulfilled.
6. In these circumstances, remand appears to be the correct
course. The matter needs to go back to the Competent Authority
for fresh consideration limited to the existence of a settlement,
Award, or applicability of Chapter V-A or V-B, and thus, existence
of a pre-established right. Accordingly, the following directions are
issued.
a) The impugned orders issued by the Competent
Authority are quashed and set aside.
b) The petitioners and respondent No.6 shall remain
present before the Competent Authority on 2 February 2026
at 11.00 a.m.
c) Both sides may file documents or other material to
support their respective case.
d) After considering such material, the Competent
Authority shall adjudicate whether the ingredients of Section
33C(1) are satisfied. The Authority shall then pass an order
in accordance with law.
e) Since the claim relates back to the year 2019, the
Competent Authority shall decide the matter within four
4
20-wp3496-2025 & Connected.doc
weeks from the date the parties first appear.
f) Any amount already paid by the petitioners shall
remain subject to the fresh adjudication by the Competent
Authority.
g) The interveners or applicants in Interim Application
No.4032 of 2023 who have resigned may file their claim
before the same Authority. Their claims shall be considered
in accordance with law.
7. With these directions, all writ petitions along with interim
applications are disposed of.
8. The learned AGP has produced a copy of the Award. The
same may be taken back on record. No further orders are required
on that issue.
9. Since the main writ petitions are disposed of, nothing
remains in the contempt petition. It also stands disposed of.
(AMIT BORKAR, J.)
5
Checking your session…