JUDGMENT : 1. Rule returnable forthwith. Mr. U.T.Mishra, learned advocate waives service of rule on behalf of respondent. 2. This petition is filed seeking following reliefs: “8(A) This Hon’ble Court may be pleased to issue a writ of mandamus and/or any other appropriate writ, order or direction to respondents in the nature of certiorari or any other writ quashing and setting aside the award dated 16.04.2019 ( produced at Annexure - A to this petition) passed by the learned Labour Court, Ahmedabad in Reference (LCA) Case No.502 of 2007 along with the order dated 30.03.2021 (produced at Annexure -B to this petition) passed by the Authority Payment and Wages Act, Labour Court in payment of Wages Application No.277 of 2019 and order dated 27.07.2021 (produced at Annexure -C to this petition) issuing Recovery Certificate bearing No.16 of 2021 by the learned Labour Court to the District Collector for recovery of the amount; (B) Pending hearing and final disposal of the petition this Hon’ble Court may be pleased to stay the execution, implementation and operation of the Award dated 16.04.2019 (produced at Annexure-A to this petition) passed by the learned Labour Court, Ahmedabad in Reference (LCA) Case No.502 of 2007 along with the order dated 30.03.2021 (produced at Annexure-B to this petition) passed by the Authority Payment and Wages Act, Labour Court in Payment of Wages Application No.277 of 2019 and order dated 27.07.2021 (produced at Annexure -C to this petition) issuing Recovery Certificate bearing No.16 of 2021 by the learned Labour Court to the District Collector for recovery of the amount. (C) This Hon’ble Court may be pleased to issue appropriate orders and directions as may be necessary from time to time as required under Section 195r/w. S.340 of the Code of Criminal Procedure and for the said purpose be pleased to issue appropriate process against the respondent, and accordingly be pleased to take cognizance against the respondent for offences found to be committed by the respondent and liable to be committed by the respondent and liable to be tried, adjudicated and to pass all necessary and consequential orders in accordance with law. (D) This Hon’ble Court may kindly be pleased to pass such other and further order which deems to fit, just and proper in the interest of justice.” 3. The facts in brief as referred in the petition are as under: 3.1. (D) This Hon’ble Court may kindly be pleased to pass such other and further order which deems to fit, just and proper in the interest of justice.” 3. The facts in brief as referred in the petition are as under: 3.1. The respondent workman was engaged with the petitioner-Company as helper w.e.f. April, 1997. It was case of respondent workman before the Labour Court that she was terminated illegally w.e.f. 28.08.2006. The provisions of the Industrial Disputes Act, 1947 (“The Act” for short) were not followed. For the said termination, the respondent-workman raised dispute before the Labour Court, Ahmedabad registered as Reference (LCA) No.502 of 2007. Upon adjudication, the Labour Court, Ahmedabad by award dated 16.04.2019 held the termination of workman as illegal. The Labour Court awarded reinstatement with continuity and 100% backwages. Consequent to the award dated 16.04.2019, payment of wages application No. 277 of 2019 was filed by the workman and the same came to be allowed by order dated 30.03.2021. Recovery Certificate No. 16 of 2021, dated 27.07.2021 was also issued in favour of respondent-workman. Aggrieved by (i) award dated 16.04.2019 in Reference (LCA) No. 502 of 2007, (ii) order dated 30.03.2021 in payment of wages application No.277 of 2019, and (iii) Recovery Certificate No.16 of 2021 dated 27.07.2021, the present petition is filed. 4. Heard Mr. Chintan Desai, learned advocate for the petitioner and Mr. U.T.Mishra, learned advocate for the respondent-workman on caveat. 5. Considering the issue involved and with the consent of the parties, the present petition is taken up for final hearing. 6. Mr. Desai, learned advocate for the petitioner made following submissions: (i) The award of the Labour Court dated 16.04.2019 is erroneous because from the cross-examination of the respondent, it is clear that the workman at the relevant time had stated that despite efforts made, she could not get employment and considering her unemployment, 100% backwages were awarded. However, from the evidence placed at Annexure L page 88 onwards, it is evident that the workman was gainfully employed. The documents placed are the Employees’ State Insurance Corporation Slips, which refers to contribution of respondent workman. Thus, it is evident that the workman was gainfully employed from the year 2011 to 2021. Since wrong statement on oath has been made to mislead the Court, award deserves to be quashed on this ground alone. The documents placed are the Employees’ State Insurance Corporation Slips, which refers to contribution of respondent workman. Thus, it is evident that the workman was gainfully employed from the year 2011 to 2021. Since wrong statement on oath has been made to mislead the Court, award deserves to be quashed on this ground alone. (ii) Placing heavy reliance on Annexure L page 88, Learned Advocate submitted that suppression of material facts amounts to fraudulent action and as per the decision of the Hon’ble Supreme Court in the case of Commr. Of Customs (Preventive) vs. Aafloat Textiles (I) Private Limited reported in 2009 (11) SCC 18 any order passed based on suppression of material facts, amount to fraud and therefore, deserves to be quashed and set aside. (iii) On the aspect of the petition filed in the year 2024, challenging the award dated 16.04.2019, Learned Advocate submitted that since the employer was not in possession of evidence of gainful employment of the respondent-workman they were trying hard to collect the evidence that the workman was gainfully employed and she had deliberately suppressed the said fact and, therefore, also the order deserves to be quashed and set aside. Further, the delay occasioned may not be considered when there is misrepresentation by suppression of material facts. In support he relied upon the decision of the Hon’ble Supreme Court in the case of Ajit Kr.Bhuyan vs. Debajit Das reported in 2019(12) SCC 275 . Moreover, pursuant to the award, the application of the workman under provisions of Payment of Wages Act has been allowed. (iv) Further, misrepresentation with suppression amounts to fraud and vitiates the entire proceedings and, therefore, the award deserves to be quashed and set aside. In support, he relied upon the decision of the Hon’ble Supreme Court in the case of Bilkis Yakub Rasool vs. Union of India & Ors. reported in AIR 2024 SC 289 . (v) Learned advocate submitted that when the award is passed in favour of the workman, appropriate application would be application under Section 33(C) (2) of the Act and not the application made under Payment of Wages Act. He submitted that the provisions of Payment of Wages would be applicable when the wages are not paid in terms of the provisions of the Act. He submitted that the provisions of Payment of Wages would be applicable when the wages are not paid in terms of the provisions of the Act. The same not being the case here, the application made seeking recovery of wages itself being invalid, the order dated 30.03.2021, deserves to be quashed and set aside. (vi) Further, pursuant to the application under Section 52 of Payment of Wages Act, the certificate dated 27.07.2021, was issued and after issuance of recovery certificate, Special Civil Application No.749 of 2022 is filed seeking execution of the certificate. SCA 749 of 2011, is pending adjudication. During pendency of the said petition, the workman entered into a settlement, accepting lumpsum compensation of Rs.50,000/-. Accordingly, a cheque was drawn and deposited through RTGS in the workman’s account. Despite that, she had contended that she is not aware about the settlement. The settlement entered into between the parties and post settlement the statement was recorded in the office of Mamlatdar who is party respondent in Special Civil Application NO.749 of 2022. Thus, after accepting the settlement amount and after having gainful employment from the year 2011 to 2021, a lay attempt was made by the workman by filing recovery application under the provisions of the Payment of Wages Act, which itself is invalid and the same deserves to be quashed and set aside. (vii) Further, the workman had personally visited the office of Mamlatdar and her statement of settlement was recorded after explaining the same in vernacular language. Despite that she has taken a summer sault by filing the petition seeking execution of the recovery certificate. Learned advocate thus, submitted that the conduct of the workman being fraudulent and there being suppression of material fact in respect of her gainful employment, the petition deserves to be allowed by quashing and setting aside the award. 7. On the other hand, Mr.U.T.Mishra, learned advocate for the respondent workman submitted that the present petition deserves to be rejected on following grounds: (i) The present petition is not maintainable because along with award dated 16.04.2019, the challenge is also made to the order dated 30.03.2021 in Payment of Wages Application No.277 of 2019 decided under the provisions of Payment of Wages Act. Against the order dated 30.03.2021, in Payment of Wages Application No.277 of 2019, statutory remedy of appeal is provided under Section 17 of the Payment of Wages Act and, therefore, the extraordinary jurisdiction under Article 226 and 227 of the Constitution of India may not be exercised. In support, learned advocate relied upon following decisions: (a) Assistant Commissioner (Ct) Ltd. Kakinada vs. Glaxo Smith Kline Consumer Health Case Ltd. reported in 2020 (19) SCC 681 . (b) Judgment dated 08.02.2006 in Letters Patent Appeal No.702 of 1995 of Division Bench. (c) Sandeep Hareshbhai Agarwal vs. Allaudin Jamluddin reported in 2001 (3) GLH 741 . (ii) The petition is also not maintainable on the ground of delay, latches and acquiescence. The present petition is filed after a delay of five years challenging the award dated 16.04.2019 of Labour Court, Ahmedabad in Reference (LCA) No.508 of 2007. No explanation has been provided for delay occasioned. (iii) Moreover, after the award dated 16.04.2019 in Reference (LCA) No. 502 of 2007, the workman preferred application seeking recovery of wages under the provisions of Payment of Wages Act. In the said application, notice was served to the present petitioner, despite, that petitioner chose not to participate. Consequentially, the order dated 30.03.2021 was passed deciding the application on merits. The order dated 30.03.2021 in application under Payment of Wages Act was served to the petitioner and no steps were taken to challenge the award dated 16.04.20219 or the order dated 30.03.2021 in the application. Consequentially the recovery certificate No.16 of 2021 dated 27.07.2021 was issued to District Collector to recover the amount. Since no execution was done, respondent preferred Special Civil Application No.749 of 2022 wherein this Court issued notice. Despite service of notice in Special Civil Application No.749 of 2022, the petitioner chose not to appear in the said matter. (iv) Moreover, during pendency of Special Civil Application No.749 of 2022, the workman was called upon to sign the settlement and by misrepresentation of facts, thumb impression was obtained. Meanwhile this Court by an order dated 15.02.2024, in Special Civil Application No.749 of 2022, directed District Collector to execute the recovery certificate. Pursuant to the order dated 15.02.2024, the Collector initiated proceedings for execution of the recovery certificate and subsequent thereto present petition is filed. Meanwhile this Court by an order dated 15.02.2024, in Special Civil Application No.749 of 2022, directed District Collector to execute the recovery certificate. Pursuant to the order dated 15.02.2024, the Collector initiated proceedings for execution of the recovery certificate and subsequent thereto present petition is filed. Therefore, the present petition is filed with a malafide, deliberate and ulterior motive, and deserves to be dismissed on the ground of delay, latches and acquiescence. In support of his submissions, Learned Advocate relied upon the decisions in the case of (a) Gujarat Rajya Kamdar Sena vs. Government of Gujarat reported in 2022 (173) FLR 330 and (b) Prabhakar vs. Joint Director Sericulture Department reported in 2015 (15) SCC 1 . (v) In relation to merits, learned advocate for the respondent submitted that it is not open for the petitioner to lead evidence at this stage, seeking to quash and set aside the award because the said documents were not part of the record in reference proceedings. There is no jurisdictional error in passing the award dated 16.04.2019 and there being no perversity and illegality, the question of quashing and setting aside the award would not arise. Relying upon decision in case of Raj Kumar Dixit vs. Vijay Kumar Gauri Shankar, Kanpur Nagar reported in 2015 (9) SCC 345 , he submitted that producing additional documents by parties before the High Court is totally impermissible in law for the reason that the High Court’s jurisdiction is to examine the correctness of the award passed by the Labour court in exercise of its judicial review under Article 227 of the Constitution of India which is very limited. Thus, there being no perversity or jurisdictional error in the award, no interference is called for in the award. The reasons stated in this petition that they were collecting the relevant documents justifying the employment of the workman is of no consequence at this stage because the same were not part of the documents before the Labour Court. Therefore, it cannot be stated to be any fraud or misrepresentation or suppression of material facts on the part of the workman. The contention raised in the present petition are contrary to the documentary evidence on record which raises the disputed question of facts and the same may not be entertained in the petition filed challenging the award. Learned advocate thus, submitted to reject the petition with cost. 8. The contention raised in the present petition are contrary to the documentary evidence on record which raises the disputed question of facts and the same may not be entertained in the petition filed challenging the award. Learned advocate thus, submitted to reject the petition with cost. 8. Considered the submissions and the decisions relied upon. Revisitation of the facts would reveal the following chronology. (i) The workman was working with the petitioner since 1997 and terminated w.e.f. 28.08.2007, without following any procedure as contemplated under the provisions of the Act. The workman raised dispute before the Labour court registered as Reference (LCA) No.502 of 2007 and the Labour Court after adjudication, passed an award directing the petitioner to reinstate the workman on her original post with continuity of service along with 100% backwages. (ii) Since the backwages as directed under award dated 16.04.2019 were not paid, the workman preferred an application under Section 15 of Payment of Wages Act seeking recovery of backwages and other benefits. The petitioner was served with the notice, despite that no appearance was entered. The said Recovery Application No.277 of 2019 was allowed by an order dated 30.03.2021. Consequently, the petitioner employer was directed to pay an amount of Rs.9,82,609/- with interest. (iii) The order dated 30.03.2021 was once again served to the petitioner. Since the payment as directed was not made, the Labour Court issued recovery certificate No.16 of 2021 dated 27.07.2021. (iv) Despite certificate dated 27.07.2021, no payment was made and therefore, the workman preferred Special Civil Application NO.749 of 2022 before this Court seeking execution of recovery certificate No.16 of 2021. This Court issued notice dated 08.03.2022, and time was granted to the Collector to execute the recovery certificate. Despite service of notice in Special Civil Application No.749 of 2022, no appearance was made at the initial stage. (v) Consequentially, the Mamlatdar, Alien Recovery, Ahmedabad initiated proceedings to execute the recovery certificate and also sought police protection for attachment of the property of the employer on 05.04.2023. On the very day (05.04.2023), allegedly a settlement was entered into by the petitioner with the workman wherein as per say of the petitioner it was agreed to pay Rs.50,000/- towards lumpsum compensation in lieu of the award dated 16.04.2019. (vi) Factually, the settlement was signed outside the office of Mamlatdar and thereafter, a statement dated 05.04.2023 was recorded in the office of Mamlatdar. (vi) Factually, the settlement was signed outside the office of Mamlatdar and thereafter, a statement dated 05.04.2023 was recorded in the office of Mamlatdar. From perusal of the statement (Annexure J page 85) it is noticed that though the statement was recorded in the office of Mamlatdar, no stamp was put as to in whose presence it was recorded. It refers as ‘ruburu’ with some initials. Thumb impressions of workman is seen and signature on behalf of petitioner with his witnesses are there, however, no witnesses of workman had signed the statement. Therefore, the statement is no statement in eye of Law. It is surprising as to why the public officer had so acted. (vii) However, considering the fact that the statement was recorded in public office and signed by Mamlatdar, workman was asked to remain present on 23.03.2024. She remained present before this Court and upon asking, she stated that she was asked to put the thumb impression which she did and was not aware about the settlement. 9. Be that as it may. Since the criminal complaint is filed, this Court would not like to interfere in relation to the contents and veracity of the settlement between the parties and statement recorded before Mamlatdar. However, in the opinion of this Court, it needs to be noted that the settlement and the statement as referred earlier, does not contain the signature of witness. 10. In relation to merits of the matter, taking into consideration the chronology referred herein above it is noticed that despite having knowledge of award dated 16.04.2019 as also the order dated 30.03.2021 and the order dated 19.01.2022 in Special Civil Application NO.749 of 2022, the present petition was filed in the month of March, 2024, when the steps were initiated to execute the recovery certificate by seeking police protection. So far as settlement on which heavy reliance is placed and the statement recorded is not valid settlement or statement in eye of Law. The criminal complaint filed cannot be ignored. 11. Having considered the fact that the present petition is filed belatedly after a period of five years after having knowledge of the proceedings which are pending seeking execution of the award dated 16.04.2019 and the resultant recovery certificate dated 27.07.2021, no interference is called for. More so, the reliance placed on settlement is of no consequence because it raises a disputed question of fact. More so, the reliance placed on settlement is of no consequence because it raises a disputed question of fact. Further, heavy reliance placed on the documents which are at Annexure L i.e. ESIC slips is also of no consequence, since the same were not forming part of the documents before the Labour Court. 12. On the aspect of additional documents which were not forming part of record before the Labour Court, the Hon’ble Supreme Court in the case of Raj Kumar Dixit vs. Vijay Kumar Gauri Shankar, Kanpur Nagar (supra) has held as under: “19. The contention urged on behalf of the respondent-firm that the Award of compensation of Rs.2 Lakhs in lieu of the reinstatement and 50% back wages by the High Court is on account of the alleged closure of the respondent establishment is neither supported by any pleading nor any evidence has been adduced before the Labour Court or this Court in that regard by the respondent-establishment. If any additional material is produced before the High Court, the same would be impermissible in law for the reason that the respondent-employer was required to plead with regard to the alleged closure and substantial evidence must be produced in support of the same before the Labour Court at the first instance, and no such plea has been taken before the Labour Court by them. In absence of such a plea, producing additional documents by the respondent-establishment before the High Court is totally impermissible in law for the reason that the High Court’s jurisdiction is to examine the correctness of the Award passed by the Labour Court in exercise of its judicial review power under Article 227 of the Constitution of India which is very limited. In the present case, even if we consider the facts, there is no additional material evidence produced on record before the High Court and it has no jurisdiction to receive the same and render its findings. Apart from the said reason no other reason has been assigned by the High Court in its judgment and order for modifying the Award passed by the Labour Court. Therefore, the legal contention urged in this regard on behalf of the respondent-establishment is misconceived and the same is liable to be rejected.” Therefore, contention of gainful employment cannot be considered at this stage. 13. Therefore, the legal contention urged in this regard on behalf of the respondent-establishment is misconceived and the same is liable to be rejected.” Therefore, contention of gainful employment cannot be considered at this stage. 13. Further, on unexplained delay and latches in preferring the petition challenging the award, this Court in the case of Gujarat Rajya Kamdar Sena vs. Government of Gujarat (supra) has held as under: “6. …………... Thus, unexplained delay and laches on the part of the petitioner itself is suffice for this Court not to exercise the extraordinary jurisdiction vested in this Court. The principle of delay defeats equity is squarely applicable to the facts on hand. That apart, even on merits, we find that in the process of collective bargaining made during the course of conciliation proceedings it has resulted in a settlement being arrived at by 128 members (majority workmen of respondent No.3) who were all the members of the petitioner union itself and they had tendered resignation on 7.2.2012 and it was unanimously approved in the general meeting of the union held on 7.2.2012. As such, the collective bargaining which has been done by majority workmen of respondent No.3 being in the best interest of the workmen, it cannot be gainsaid that petitioner union would be espousing the cause of the larger group of workmen or the greater interest of the workmen having been sacrificed by these 128 workmen so as to contend that it would come within the four corners of such settlement not being reasonable or is to be termed as mala fide or it did not cater to the interest of the workmen. Said contention deserves to be rejected and accordingly it stands rejected.” 14. Further in the recent decision of Hon’ble Supreme Court in the case of Bichitrananda Behera vs. State of Orissa and Ors. reported in 2023 Live Law (SC) 883 in paras 21 and 22 it is held as under: “21. The word “laches” is derived from the French language meaning “remissness and slackness”. It thus involves unreasonable delay or negligence in pursuing a claim involving an equitable relief while causing prejudice to the other party. It is neglect on the part of a party to do an act which law requires while asserting a right, and therefore, must stand in the way of the party getting relief or remedy. 22. It thus involves unreasonable delay or negligence in pursuing a claim involving an equitable relief while causing prejudice to the other party. It is neglect on the part of a party to do an act which law requires while asserting a right, and therefore, must stand in the way of the party getting relief or remedy. 22. Two essential factors to be seen are the length of the delay and the nature of acts done during the interval. As stated, it would also involve acquiescence on the part of the party approaching the court apart from the change in position in the interregnum. Therefore, it would be unjustifiable for a Court of Equity to confer a remedy on a party who knocks its doors when his acts would indicate a waiver of such a right. By his conduct, he has put the other party in a particular position, and therefore, it would be unreasonable to facilitate a challenge before the court. Thus, a man responsible for his conduct on equity is not expected to be allowed to avail a remedy.” 15. On the submissions of learned advocate for the petitioner that delay is to be considered in facts of each case and considering the facts of present case, in the opinion of this Court it is evident that the petitioner choose to file the present petition when the execution proceedings were initiated. Prior to that, despite service of notice of the award dated 16.04.2019, thereafter order in recovery certificate dated 27.07.2021 no steps were taken and most importantly, after the order of this Court in Special Civil Application No.749 of 2022, present petition is filed. Therefore, the present petition being filed after having acquiesced to the proceedings and after unexplained delay of five years, the same deserves to be rejected and the same is hereby rejected. Rule is discharged.