1/17
27-wp.80.2013.doc
nsc.
IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY
CIVIL APPELLATE JURISDICTION
WRIT PETITION NO.80 OF 2013
1) Meera Rajendra Jadhav
Widow of the deceased, Age : 32 years,
2) Mast. Chetan Rajendra Jadhav
Son of the deceased, Age : 13 years,
3) Kum. Akanksha Rajendra Jadhav
Daughter of the deceased, Age : 13 years,
4) Kum. Rajeshwari Rajendra Jadhav
Daughter of the deceased, Age : 9 years,
5) Shri Nivruti Digambar Jadhav
Father of the deceased, Age : 64 years,
6) Smt.Kantabai Nivruti Jadhav
Mother of the deceased, Age 57 years,
(Petitioners No.2 to 4, through their
Mother and natural guardian,
i.e. the Petitioner No.1)
All residing at Gosavi Vaasti,
Happy Colony, Lane No.3,
Behind Janata Sahakari Bank,
Kothrud, Pune. ...Petitioners.
v/s.
1) The State of Maharashtra,
Through Secretary,
Home Department,
Mantralaya, Mumbai - 400 021.
2) The Administrative Judge,
Labour Court, P.M.T. Building,
Swargate, Pune - 411 037.
::: Downloaded on - 27/11/2013 20:28:39 :::
2/17
27-wp.80.2013.doc
3) Government Treasury Office,
Collector Compound,
Pune - 411 001.
4) Auditor General of State of Maharashtra,
101, Pratishtha Bhavan,
Maharshi Karve Marg,
Churchgate, Mumbai. ...Respondents.
---
Mr.A.M.Gokhale, for the petitioners.
Mr.S.K.Shinde, G.P. for respondent nos.1 and 4.
Mr.A.D.Kango, AGP for respondent no.2.
Mr.Vinod Joshi, for respondent no.3.
---
CORAM: A. S. OKA &
REVATI MOHITE DERE, JJ.
OCTOBER 22, 2013.
Judgment (Per A.S.Oka, J.):
1. Heard learned counsel appearing for the petitioners, learned Government Pleader for the respondent nos.1 and 4 and learned counsel appearing for respondent no.3. The petitioners are claimants in a Claim Petition filed under the Workmen's Compensation Act, 1923 before the Commissioner for Workmen's Compensation at Pune. The Commissioner for Workmen's Compensation at Pune is the learned Judge of the Labour Court at Pune. The petitioners are the legal representatives of deceased Rajendra Nivrutti Jadhav who ::: Downloaded on - 27/11/2013 20:28:39 ::: 3/17 27-wp.80.2013.doc suffered employment injury and lost his life. By the Judgment and Order dated 30th November, 2010, compensation was ordered to be paid to the petitioners. It appears that the compensation amount was deposited by the Insurer of the employer. In December, 2010, the establishment of the Commissioner for Workmen's Compensation issued four cheques in the sum of Rs.39,793/-, Rs.40,000/-, Rs.39,793/-
and Rs.6,15,000/-. The cheque in the sum of Rs.6,15,000/-
represented the investment to be made as per Clause - 4 of the operative part of the Judgment and Order dated 30 th November, 2010. Another cheque in the sum of Rs.40,000/-
was drawn in favour of the first petitioner who is the widow of the deceased. The cheque in the sum of Rs.39,793/- was drawn in favour of the fifth petitioner who is the father of the deceased. The cheque in the sum of Rs.39,793/- was drawn in the name of the sixth petitioner who is the mother of the deceased. The said cheques were kept ready on 28 th December, 2010 but the petitioners did not collect the said cheques and therefore, the validity of cheques expired. On 20 th June, 2011, the fifth and the sixth petitioners made an application before the learned Commissioner for issuing fresh ::: Downloaded on - 27/11/2013 20:28:39 ::: 4/17 27-wp.80.2013.doc cheques in which it was stated that they were not aware about the where-abouts of the first petitioner.
2. The grievance made in this petition is that even after long lapse of time, fresh cheques/revalidated cheques have not been issued. Therefore, this petition under Article 226 of the Constitution of India was filed by the petitioners seeking a writ of mandamus directing the second and the third respondents (learned Administrative Judge of the Labour Court and the Government Treasury Office) to release the compensation amount along with interest at the rate of 12% p.a. from 20 th June, 2011. A direction has been issued for initiating an enquiry into the cause of non-payment of the compensation due and payable to the petitioners. There is another prayer seeking a writ of mandamus which is prayer clause (d) which read thus :-
"(d) The Respondent No.2 and other Hon'ble Motor Accident Tribunals, Hon'ble Railway Accident Tribunals, Hon'ble Court of Commissioner for Workmen's Compensation, in the State of Maharashtra, be directed to open account in any nationalized bank to issue cheques to the accident victims instead of Government Treasury Office, to avoid technical, delayed procedure of Government ::: Downloaded on - 27/11/2013 20:28:39 ::: 5/17 27-wp.80.2013.doc Treasury Office."
3. On 30th January, 2013, the petition came up before this Court, when this Court called for the Report from the learned Commissioner. This Court directed that fresh cheques or revalidated cheques should be immediately issued. There were several directions issued thereafter by this Court from time to time.
4. At this stage, it will be necessary to make a reference to order dated 1st August, 2013, passed by this Court and in particular paragraph 6 thereof. Perhaps on the basis of this direction that the Government issued a Government Resolution dated 12th September, 2013, by which the Administrators of PLA Accounts were permitted to operate PLA Accounts by opening accounts with the State Bank of India/State Bank of Hyderabad. The said Government Resolution permitted even the Commissioner under the Workmen's Compensation Act, 1923 to open PLA Account with the State Bank of India. Today, the learned Government Pleader has tendered on record Government decision dated 17th October, 2013 by which the ::: Downloaded on - 27/11/2013 20:28:39 ::: 6/17 27-wp.80.2013.doc earlier method of operating PLA Accounts with the Government Treasury Office, was ordered to be continued. The learned Government Pleader stated that as the actual working of the said Government Resolution dated 12 th September, 2013 created several difficulties, the same was withdrawn and the Government is considering of issuing a fresh Resolution.
5. With the assistance of the learned counsel appearing for the petitioners and the learned Government Pleader, we have perused the affidavits filed on record by Treasury Officer as well as the Report submitted by the learned Administrative Judge of the Labour Court at Pune.
6. The report of the learned Administrative Judge of the Labour Court discloses that though the application was made by the petitioners on 20th June, 2013 for issuing fresh cheques, the said application was filed in the disposed of Claim Application and the orders of the Administrative Judge were not obtained on the said application by the Advocate concerned, the parties concerned or the concerned staff. However, when it was noticed that fresh cheques were required to be issued, on 28 th ::: Downloaded on - 27/11/2013 20:28:39 ::: 7/17 27-wp.80.2013.doc December, 2011, a letter was issued by the office of the Labour Court to the Treasury Office requesting for grant of permission for issuing fresh cheques. It is stated that as there was no response from the Treasury office, the second letter/reminder was issued on 14 February, 2012 to the Treasury Office enclosing therewith a copy of the earlier letter. It is alleged that though the Treasury Office did not respond in writing, orally a direction was issued to the accountant of the Labour Court to furnish a copy of the relevant P.L.A cash book, showing the debit entries pertaining to the amounts of these time barred cheques.
It is stated that along with a letter dated 21 st June, 2012, relevant page of PLA cash book was supplied to the Treasury Office by the Labour Court. Again a request was made to the Treasury Office to grant permission to issue fresh cheques. It is stated that the Treasury Office orally asked the Accounts Clerk of the Office of the Labour Court to furnish non-drawal certificate of the State Bank of India, Treasury Branch showing that the amounts pertaining to these time barred cheques were not paid by the said Bank. Accordingly, the office of the Labour Court on 2nd August, 2012 addressed a letter to the Manager of the said Bank. The Bank was requested to furnish the ::: Downloaded on - 27/11/2013 20:28:39 ::: 8/17 27-wp.80.2013.doc necessary information. Accordingly information was furnished by the Bank along with its letter dated 21 st August, 2012 which was forwarded to the Treasury Office on 24 th August, 2012. It is stated that till 17th December, 2012, there was no response from the Treasury Office and therefore, on that day a reminder was issued to the Treasury Office. It is stated that only on 2 nd January, 2013 that the Treasury Office issued permission for issuing fresh cheques. Thereafter, fresh cheques were issued to the concerned petitioners and an amount of Rs.6,15,000/- has been invested in terms of the Judgment of the learned Commissioner. It is contended in the Report that there is absolutely no default on the part of the office of the Labour Court.
7. On 9th April, 2013, Mr.Ashok Hingane, Additional Treasury Officer, Pune Treasury, Pune has filed an affidavit. It is contended that the original letter dated 28th December, 2011 issued by the Labour Court was not at all received by his office and a copy of the said letter along with letter dated 14 th February, 2012 was received by the Treasury Office on 20 th March, 2012. He has stated in the reply that the Labour Court ::: Downloaded on - 27/11/2013 20:28:39 ::: 9/17 27-wp.80.2013.doc was called upon to comply with the certain queries referred in letter dated 30th March, 2012. It is stated that the cancelled cheques were required to be produced. It is stated that partial compliance was made by the Labour Court by letters dated 21 st June, 2012 and 24th August, 2012. It is alleged that the Administrator of the PLA Account of Labour Court did not approach the office of the Treasury Officer for reconciliation of the Accounts. It is alleged that by letter dated 30 th March, 2013, the Treasury Officer informed the Labour Court that the amounts are wrongly credited in the Account of other Offices due to mistake of the Labour Court which are now being transferred to the proper Account. There is another affidavit filed by the same officer dated 7th September, 2013. He has reiterated that only on 20th March, 2012 that the request letter of the Labour Court was received by the Treasury Office from the Labour Court for grant of permission for issuing fresh cheques. Again in the said affidavit the Treasury Office has set out the procedure which is required to be followed. There is a grievance made that compliances were not made by the office of the Labour Court. Reliance is placed on Circulars dated 12 th June, 1973 and 20th May, 1994 as well as the office instructions ::: Downloaded on - 27/11/2013 20:28:39 ::: 10/17 27-wp.80.2013.doc dated 30th March, 2012, which lay down the procedure. There is also an affidavit filed by Madhukar Pandurang Vaidya, Incharge Secretary. of the Labour Court, Pune dealing with various factual aspects.
8. The learned counsel appearing for the petitioner submitted that on 20th June, 2011, the petitioners applied to the Labour Court for issuing fresh cheques and therefore, the petitioners are entitled to interest atleast from that date till the date on which the fresh cheques were issued. He submitted that there is complete default and inaction on the part of the administration of the Labour Court as well as the Treasury Office, which resulted in gross delay in issuing fresh cheques.
9. The learned Government Pleader invited our attention to the procedure which is required to be followed by the Treasury Office. Reliance was placed on the provisions of Maharashtra Treasury Manual. He pointed out that the peculiar procedure is required to be followed to ensure that no double payment is made to anyone. He urged that the Officers of the Treasury Office have followed the prescribed procedure and the ::: Downloaded on - 27/11/2013 20:28:39 ::: 11/17 27-wp.80.2013.doc delay may be due to the fact that there was no proper coordination between the office of the Treasury Office and the office of the Labour Court. He, therefore, urged that this is not a case where interest can be ordered to be paid as there is no deliberate default or inaction.
10. We have considered the submissions. We have perused the affidavits of the officer of the Treasury Office and the report of the Administrative Judge of the Labour Court.
The offices of the Commissioner for the Workmen's Compensation are not empowered by the State Government Office to open and/or operate PLA Accounts through Nationalised Banks. Hence, the cheques are required to be issued by the Labour Court drawn on the Treasury Office. Infact the State Government corrected itself by issuing the Government Resolution dated 12th September, 2013 by granting permission to various establishments to open PLA Account with the State Bank of India. However, now the Government Resolution has been withdrawn. If the Commissioners under the Workmen's Compensation had a PLA Account in a Nationalised Bank, the petitioners would not have faced the difficulties which ::: Downloaded on - 27/11/2013 20:28:39 ::: 12/17 27-wp.80.2013.doc they have faced.
11. After considering the report of the Administrative Judge and the affidavits of the Treasury Officer, we find that there is nothing on record to show that the request made by the Labour Court for grant of permission to issue fresh cheques was received by the Treasury Office prior to 20 th March, 2012.
Therefore, we will have to proceed on the footing that the letter of the Labour Court requesting for grant of permission to issue fresh cheques was received on 20th March, 2012 by the Treasury Office. It is true that the Treasury Office was required to follow the procedure which is prescribed. In the facts of the case, there is no dispute that the cheques were not encashed and the cheques had become time barred as the same were not even collected by the petitioners before the period of its validity expired. We have noted earlier that the three cheques in the sum of Rs.39,793/-, Rs.40,000/- an Rs.39,793/- were issued on 12th January, 2011 in the names of the fifth, first and sixth petitioners respectively on the basis of the Judgment and Order dated 23rd April, 2010. As per Clause - 4 of the Judgment and Order of the Labour Court, the sum of Rs.6,15,000/- was to be ::: Downloaded on - 27/11/2013 20:28:39 ::: 13/17 27-wp.80.2013.doc invested in the names of second to fourth petitioners who were minors at the relevant time in the Swargate Branch of Bank of Maharashtra at Pune. Surprisingly, the office of the Labour Court did not invest the said amount with the Bank of Maharashtra, Swargate Branch, though a cheque was issued in the name of the said Bank on 20th December, 2010. This may be due to the reason that the Fixed Deposit was to be in the name of second to fourth petitioners and their guardian was not present for signing the necessary documents.
12. It is true that on 20 th June, 2011 the petitioner made an application to the Labour Court for issuing fresh cheques.
Perhaps neither the petitioners nor their Advocate followed up the matter and instead of filing an appropriate application directly before the Administrative Judge of the Labour Court, the sixth petitioner addressed a letter dated 30 th April, 2012, to the Hon'ble the Chief Justice of this Court.
13. We cannot ignore that the Workmen's Compensation Act, 1923 is a beneficial legislation and it was the duty of the State to ensure that the compensation is paid to the petitioners ::: Downloaded on - 27/11/2013 20:28:39 ::: 14/17 27-wp.80.2013.doc at the earliest and within a reasonable time. The Treasury Office had received the application of the Labour Court on 20 th March, 2012 by which a simple permission was sought to issue fresh cheques. As we have noted earlier, ultimately the permission to issue fresh cheques was issued by the Treasury Office on 2nd January, 2013. The particulars of the fresh cheques issued have been set out in the Report of the Administrative Office of the Labour Court. On 24th January, 2013, the amount of Rs.6,15,000/- was invested with the Bank of Maharashtra.
14. All concerned knew that as of 20th March, 2012, that the four cheques had become time barred. The procedure for grant of permission to issue fresh cheques took such a long time of nine and half months. It took almost nine and half months for the Treasury Office to grant permission to issue fresh cheques, in lieu of the cheques which were time barred long back. The first, fifth and sixth petitioners suffered loss due to this delay. Even the second and fourth petitioners in whose name the amount of Rs.6,15,000/- was to be invested were deprived of the interest on the said amount for the said period.
It is only due to the peculiar procedure followed by the State ::: Downloaded on - 27/11/2013 20:28:39 ::: 15/17 27-wp.80.2013.doc that so much time was consumed for grant of permission to issue fresh cheques. The permission was granted after filing of the present Writ Petition. The Petitioners have suffered though there is no fault on their part. The delay in granting permission to issue fresh cheques is arbitrary and unreasonable.
15. The fact is that the petitioners - claimants suffered monetary loss on account of peculiar procedure followed by the State. The said delay is arbitrary and unreasonable. Therefore atleast for the period from 20th March, 2012 to 2nd January, 2013, the State is liable to pay interest to the petitioners at the rate of 8% per annum.
16. There cannot be any dispute that for payment of compensation payable under the Motor Vehicle Act, 1988 and the Workmen's Compensation Act, 1923 the procedure of issuing cheques of compensation has to be very simple and litigant friendly. The procedure should aim at very expeditious disbursement of compensation. One method of doing so is permitting the members of the Tribunals/Commissioners under the Workmen Compensation to open PLA Accounts with a ::: Downloaded on - 27/11/2013 20:28:39 ::: 16/17 27-wp.80.2013.doc Nationalised Bank. If that is done, the establishment of the said Tribunal or Commissioner, as the case may be, will be in a position to immediately issue cheques to the claimants. A provision has to be made to ensure that wherever it is possible, the compensation amount is directly transferred to the Accounts of the respective claimants. Only when such direct transfer is not possible that the amounts should be paid over by the cheques. The State Government will have to take appropriate decision on this aspect.
17. Hence, we dispose of the petition by passing the following order :-
ORDER
(i) We direct the State of Maharashtra to pay Simple Interest to the first, fifth and sixth petitioners on the amounts of Rs.40,000/-, Rs.39,793/- and Rs.39,793/-
respectively from 20th March, 2012 till 2nd January, 2013, at the rate of 8% per annum ;
(ii) We direct the State to pay simple interest on the sum of Rs.6,15,000/- at the rate of 8% per annum for the aforesaid period to the second to fourth petitioners. The amount of interest payable to the second to fourth petitioners shall be paid over to the first petitioner on their behalf ;::: Downloaded on - 27/11/2013 20:28:39 ::: 17/17
27-wp.80.2013.doc
(iii) We direct the State Government to take appropriate decision in terms of observations made by this Court in the last paragraph of this Judgment and Order. We direct that the appropriate decision shall be taken on or before 13th December, 2013. The decision taken by the State Government shall be placed on record along with an Affidavit ;
(iv) Interest amount payable as aforesaid shall be deposited in this Court on or before 13 th December, 2013. The withdrawal shall be permitted by the Registrar (Judicial - I) in terms of clauses (i) and (ii) above ;
(v) Place the petition under the caption of 'Directions' on 16th December, 2013 for reporting compliance.
(REVATI MOHITE DERE,J.) (A.S. OKA,J.)
::: Downloaded on - 27/11/2013 20:28:39 :::