1
wp3677.07.odt
IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY
NAGPUR BENCH, NAGPUR
Writ Petition No.3677 of 2007
Shri Anand s/o Panna Pawar,
Aged about 35 years,
Occupation - Nil,
R/o Bhangipura, Digras,
District Yavatmal. ... Petitioner
Versus
1. Divisional Controller,
M.S.R.T. Corporation,
Division Office, Arni Road,
Yavatmal.
2. The State of Maharashtra,
through its Commissioner of Labour
(Additional),
Nagpur Region, Nagpur. ... Respondents
Shri D.C.R. Mishra, Advocate for Petitioner.
None for Respondent No.1.
Shri K.R. Lule, Assistant Government Pleader for Respondent
No.2.
Coram : R.K. Deshpande, J.
Date : 6th April, 2017 Oral Judgment :
1. The Labour Court has answered the reference in respect ::: Uploaded on - 07/04/2017 ::: Downloaded on - 12/04/2017 00:33:42 ::: 2 wp3677.07.odt of termination in the negative on 16-2-2007, in Reference (I.D.A.) No.7/2003. Hence, the employee is before this Court in this writ petition.
2. On 29-4-2003, the Additional Commissioner of Labour, Nagpur passed an order, making reference of the dispute to the Labour Court, the relevant portion of which, is reproduced below :
" Now, therefore, in exercise of the powers conferred by Clause (c) of Sub-section (1) of Section 10 read with Sub-section (5) of Section 12 of the Industrial Disputes Act, 1947, as delegated in the manner aforesaid, the Additional Commissioner of Labour, Nagpur is pleased to refer the said dispute, for adjudication to the Labour Court at Yavatmal constituted under Government Notification No.IDA-1098/9112/(1491)/LAB.3, dated 6.2.1999.
SCHEDULE Shri A.P. Pawar whose services have been terminated from the employment of M/s. Divisional Controller, M.S.R.T.C., Yavatmal should be reinstated in service with payment of full back wages and continuity of service, with ::: Uploaded on - 07/04/2017 ::: Downloaded on - 12/04/2017 00:33:42 ::: 3 wp3677.07.odt effect from 1/1/2001."
In para 9 of the award passed by the Labour Court, it is held as under :
"9. ... Thus, it can be said that, before the conciliation officer, the applicant party No.2 when appeared before him claimed that, his services were terminated w.e.f. 15.1.2001 or 1.1.2001 and now it is tried to prove that, his services were terminated w.e.f. 1.7.2001. Thus, when the party No.2 himself stated and tried to prove that, he worked beyond 15.1.2001 and also has received compensation on daily wages. Thus, it cannot be proved that, his services were terminated w.e.f. 1.1.2001 or 15.1.2001. Therefore, party No.2 has to submit an application before the government or Commissioner of Labour (Additional), Nagpur for change in date mentioned in the reference for issuance of corrigendum in schedule, but in absence of the same, the services of the party No.2 were terminated by the party No.1 w.e.f. 15.1.2001 or 1.1.2001 illegally cannot be proved and thus, issue is answered in negative."::: Uploaded on - 07/04/2017 ::: Downloaded on - 12/04/2017 00:33:42 ::: 4
wp3677.07.odt
3. It is thus apparent that on 1-1-2001, the employee was in service and getting salary. He was not terminated on that date. Even on 15-1-2001, he was in service as per his own admission and he received the compensation on daily wages. In view of sub-section (4) of Section 10 of the Industrial Disputes Act, 1947, the view taken by the Labour Court cannot be faulted, as the Labour Court is not competent to go behind the order of reference.
4. The learned counsel for the petitioner has relied upon the decision of the Division Bench decision in the case of Sheshrao Bhaduji Hatwar v. P.O., First Labour Court & Others, reported in 1992-I-LLJ-672, to urge that even if reference in respect of termination dated 1-1-2001, it has to be read as 1-7-2001, which is the actual date of termination. I have gone through the said decision. The facts therein are different. In this case, it is not the formal defect, but the controversy revolves around termination with effect from 1-1-2001 and to read it as 1-7-2001 or 15-1-2001 changes the entire complexion of ::: Uploaded on - 07/04/2017 ::: Downloaded on - 12/04/2017 00:33:42 ::: 5 wp3677.07.odt controversy or dispute. The decision is, therefore, not applicable.
5. The petition is dismissed. Rule stands discharged. No order as to costs.
JUDGE.
Lanjewar ::: Uploaded on - 07/04/2017 ::: Downloaded on - 12/04/2017 00:33:42 :::