Authority: Supreme Court of India

Order Date: 22-06-2026

Case Overview

  • Petitioners: Alka Dewan alias Mithila Madan Dewan and others (referred to as "Petitioner(s)").
  • Respondents: Labour Commissioner & others ("Respondent(s)").
  • Petitions: Special Leave Petitions (C) Nos. 21974‑21977/2026, arising from the impugned final judgment and order dated 21‑05‑2026 in WP Nos. 2053, 2059, 2060, 2061 passed by the High Court of Judicature at Bombay, Circuit Bench at Kolhapur.
  • Inter‑Application (IA) Nos.: 180838/2026 (exemption from filing C/C of the impugned judgment) and 180835/2026 (exemption from filing O.T.).
  • Background: The dispute stems from a wage claim by erstwhile employees of M/s. Delstar Private Limited. The Assistant Labour Commissioner, on 5‑Feb‑2016, allowed an application under Section 33(C)(2) of the Industrial Disputes Act filed by the employees’ union and directed the company (represented by directors Shri Madan Diwan and Shri D.V. Chitale) to pay a total of Rs 68,83,549, comprising salary and salary‑difference for workmen for the period June 2011 to 2012, together with interest.
  • Recovery Certificate: Issued on 11‑Oct‑2022 and forwarded to the District Collector for recovery as per the Labour Court order.
  • High Court Intervention: In Writ Petition No. 5381/2025, the High Court directed the authorities to decide the recovery proceedings within ten weeks. Subsequently, the Assistant Labour Commissioner, Satara, issued a modified recovery certificate, impleading the petitioner as an additional director of the company.
  • Petitioner’s Grievance: Alleged that her individually owned property, acquired from Ramchandra Bhimaji and Company on 1‑Jan‑2026, was wrongly included in the company’s asset list and attached without notice. She also claimed removal from the post of additional director on 1‑Nov‑2016.
  • Court Observations: No copy of the writ petition was placed on record; no authentic document showing removal of the petitioner as director under the Companies Act was produced. The Court held that the issues raised are pure questions of fact and that the petitioner can demonstrate before the High Court that her personal properties cannot be attached for recovery of the employees’ dues. The impugned order is interlocutory and does not finally foreclose any right of the petitioner.

Final Outcome

  • The Special Leave Petitions are dismissed as being devoid of merits.
  • Any pending applications, if any, are ordered to stand disposed of.

Topics: Labor Law, Wage Recovery