wp5144.15.J.odt 1/9
IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY
NAGPUR BENCH, NAGPUR
WRIT PETITION NO. 5144 OF 2015
1] Gulab Shankar Bagade,
Aged about 54 years. R/o-Maher,
Post-Khed, Taluka-Bramhapuri,
Dist-Chandrapur.
2] Krishna Sadashiv Gurunule,
Aged about 43 years, R/o-Kinhi,
Taluka-Sindhewahi, Dist-Chandrapur.
3] Arun Ganghadhar Botkawar,
Aged about 44 years, R/o-Dhorpa,
Post-Paharni, Taluka-Nagbhid,
Dist-Chandrapur.
4] Bhaskar Nanaji Sonule,
Aged about 50 years,
R/o-Saradpar, Taluka-Sindewahi,
District-Chandrapur.
5] Sudhakar Sitaram Kumre,
Aged about 56 years,
R/o-Madnapur Ward, Sindewahi,
District-Chandrapur.
6] Deepak Pralhad Wankhede,
Aged about 58 years, Sindewahi,
Hetiward, District-Chandrapur.
7] Narendra Ramaji Dhongade,
Aged about 49 years, R/o-Lonwahi,
Sindewahi, Dist. Chandrapur.
8] Namdeo Dewaji Kore,
Aged about 46 years, R/o-Post Mendha
::: Uploaded on - 23/08/2017 ::: Downloaded on - 24/08/2017 01:54:50 :::
wp5144.15.J.odt 2/9
(Kirmiti) Tah-Bramhapuri,
Dist. Chandrapur.
9] Waman Madadev Raut,
Aged about 51 years, R/o-Dudhwahi,
Post Khed, Tah-Bramhapuri,
Dist. Chandrapur.
10] Dudhram Maroti Deshmukh,
Aged about 54 years, R/o-Shivnagar,
Taluka Nagbhid, Dist. Chandrapur.
11] Ramdas Atmaram Khobragade,
Aged about 57 years, R/o Dordha Post
Paharni, Taluka Nagbhid,
Dist. Chandrapur.
12] Mahadeo Gomaji Bagmare,
Aged about 61 years, R/o Uchali Post
Moushi, Taluka Nagbhid,
Dist-Chandrapur.
13] Madhukar Ramchandra Meshram,
Aged about 46 years, R/o Armori,
Shivaji Chowk, Armori, Taluka Armori,
Dist. Gadchiroli,
14] Nanaji Mukhru Shivurkar,
Aged about 46 years, R/o Armori,
Shivaji Chowk, Armori, Taluka Armori,
Dist. Gadchiroli.
15] Vithal Somaji Ambone,
Aged about 49 years, R/o Shivnagar,
Taluka Nagbhid, Dist. Chandrapur.
16] Purushottam Pandurang Kolte,
Aged about 49 years, R/o Wasara, Post
Mindala, Taluka Nagbhid,
Dist. Chandrapur.
::: Uploaded on - 23/08/2017 ::: Downloaded on - 24/08/2017 01:54:50 :::
wp5144.15.J.odt 3/9
17] Digambar Sambhaji Raut.
Aged about 62 years, R/o-Wasera,
Post Mindala, Talukar Nagbhid,
District-Chandrapur.
18] Madhukar Ramchandra Meshram.
Aged about 54 years, R/o-Paharni,
Taluka Nagbhid, District - Chandrapur.
19] Abhiman Chintaman Sondawale,
Aged about 48 years, R/o-Vilam,
Taluka Nagbhid, Dist. Chandrapur.
20] Goma Soma Thote,
Aged about 65 years, R/o Telimendha
Post Paharni, Tq. Nagbhid,
Dist. Chandrapur.
21] Ramesh Shrawan Bhendare,
Aged about 49 years, R/o-Murmadi,
Tq. Sindewahi, Dist. Chandrapur.
22] Gopal Tulshiram Nagarikar,
Aged about 60 years, R/o-Chikmara,
Post Vilan, Taluka Nagbhid (Shivnagar)
Dist. Chandrapur.
23] Haridas Pandurang Alwankar,
Aged about 60 years, R/o-Chikmara,
Post Vilan, Tq. Nagbhid (Shivnagar)
Dist. Chandrapur.
24] Nathu Chirkuta Maraskolhe,
Aged about 60 years.
25] Prakash Mangre Wagh,
Aged about 47 years, R/o No.24 & 25
R/o-Kunghada Chak, Post Mohadi (Mo)
Tq. Nagbhid, Dist. Chandrapur.
::: Uploaded on - 23/08/2017 ::: Downloaded on - 24/08/2017 01:54:50 :::
wp5144.15.J.odt 4/9
26] Raghunath Tulshiram Adkine,
Aged about 51 years, R/o Maher,
Post. Khed, Taluka Bramhapuri,
Dist. Chandrapur.
27] Uttam Sakharam Bawane,
Aged about 55 years, R/o Maher,
Post. Khed, Taluka Bramhapuri,
Dist. Chandrapur.
28] Yashwant Dashrath Sutar.
Aged about 57 years.
28] Chandrabhan Antuji Barokar,
Aged about 58 years.
Both No.28 & 29 R/o Chindhimal,
Post Chindhi Chak, Tq. Nagbhid,
District-Chandrapur. .....PETITIONERS
...V E R S U S...
1] Forest Development Corporation of
Maharashtra Ltd.,
Through its Managing Director,
Having its Office at Rawel Plaza,
Kadbi Chowk, Kamptee road,
Nagpur - 4.
2] Regional Manager (General Manager)
F.D.C.M. Ltd., North Chandrapur
Region, Mul Road, Chandrapur.
3] Divisional Manager,
L. D. C. M. Ltd., Bramhaprui Division,
District - Chandrapur. ...... RESPONDENTS.
=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-
Shri B. M. Khan, Advocate for the Petitioners.
Shri M. M. Sudame, AGP for the Respondent No.3.
=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-
::: Uploaded on - 23/08/2017 ::: Downloaded on - 24/08/2017 01:54:50 :::
wp5144.15.J.odt 5/9
CORAM : S. C. GUPTE, J.
th DATE : 18 AUGUST, 2017.
ORAL JUDGMENT :
Heard learned counsel for the parties.
02] Rule. Rule made returnable forthwith and taken up for hearing with consent of counsel.
03] The petition challenges an order passed by the Industrial Court at Chandrapur in a revision from a complaint of unfair labour practice. The complaint in this case pertains to the petitioners' termination by the respondents by orders dated 30 th June, 2000. The petitioners were working as "Chowkidar" with the respondents since 1986. Their services were terminated on 30 th June, 2000 by way of retrenchment without complying with the statutory provisions. Similar orders were passed in respect of a total of about 150 employees. The employees challenged their respective terminations by separate complaints. The petitioners' complaint before the Labour Court was Complaint ULP No.102/2000. The Labour Court partly allowed the complaint and granted relief of ::: Uploaded on - 23/08/2017 ::: Downloaded on - 24/08/2017 01:54:50 ::: wp5144.15.J.odt 6/9 Rs.25,000/- by way of compensation towards retrenchment. The matter was carried in revision before the Industrial Court at Chandrapur. The Revisional Court by its order dated 29 th November, 2013, dismissed the revision. The present petition challenges the order of dismissal passed in revision. By the time this petition has come up for hearing before this Court, other employees' challenge to the award of compensation of Rs.25,000/- went all the way to the Hon'ble Supreme Court and by its order dated 24th April, 2015, the Hon'ble Supreme Court, relying on the law decided in the case of Bharat Sanchar Nigam Limited ..vs.. Man Singh, reported in (2012) 1 Supreme Court Cases 558, enhanced the compensation in the case each of the workmen to Rs.2,00,000/-. The present petitioners also press for enhancement of their compensations on the basis of the order passed by the Hon'ble Supreme Court. A learned Single Judge of this Court, in another writ petition of a similarly placed employee of the respondents, namely, Writ Petition No.3509 of 2016, passed a similar order of compensation based on the Hon'ble Supreme Court's order in the case of other employees referred to above.
04] Learned counsel for the respondents opposes this
::: Uploaded on - 23/08/2017 ::: Downloaded on - 24/08/2017 01:54:50 :::
wp5144.15.J.odt 7/9
application on two grounds. Firstly, learned counsel submits that the decision of the Hon'ble Supreme Court in the case of Bharat Sanchar Nigam Limited, does not state any law and that it is really an order under Article 142 of the Constitution of India. Secondly, it is submitted that though this Court passed a similar order of compensation in Writ Petition No.4720 of 2014 and Writ Petition No.4726 of 2014, in other two petitions of similarly placed employees, namely, Writ Petition No.3509 of 2016 and Writ Petition No.3400 of 2016, this Court has refused to pass any order of enhancement.
05] In the first place, the order of the Hon'ble Supreme Court in the case of Bharat Sanchar Nigam Limited, does state a proposition of law. It considers a catena of decisions of the Hon'ble Supreme Court, which lay down that although an order of retrenchment passed in violation of Section 25-F of the Industrial Disputes Act may be set aside, an award of reinstatement should not ordinarily be passed. The Court, in this behalf, distinguished between a daily wager, who does not hold a post, and a permanent employee. After considering this legal position and also the fact that the workmen before the Court in the case of Bharat Sanchar ::: Uploaded on - 23/08/2017 ::: Downloaded on - 24/08/2017 01:54:50 ::: wp5144.15.J.odt 8/9 Nigam Limited were daily wagers having put in work for more than 240 days, the Court was of the view that the relief of reinstatement was not justified and that instead of mandatory compensation of Rs.2,00,000/- to each of the workmen before it would meet the ends of justice.
06] Apropos of the second argument of the respondents, it is seen from the various orders passed by this Court in the individual petitions referred to above that in Writ Petition No.3509 of 2016 and Writ Petition No.3400 of 2016, relief similar to that granted by the Hon'ble Supreme Court to similarly placed employees, was denied to the particular petitioners on the ground of inordinate delay. In the present case, there is no such delay. The case of the present petitioners stands exactly on the same footing as the other employees in whose cases the Hon'ble Supreme Court enhanced the compensation from Rs.25,000/- to Rs.2,00,000/-. There is no reason why similar enhancement should not be granted to the petitioners herein.
07] In the premises, in the peculiar facts and circumstances of the case, Rule is made absolute by quashing and setting aside the ::: Uploaded on - 23/08/2017 ::: Downloaded on - 24/08/2017 01:54:50 ::: wp5144.15.J.odt 9/9 revisional order of the Industrial Court as well as the original order of the Labour Court and enhancing the compensation granted to the petitioners from Rs.25,000/- to Rs.2,00,000/-. 08] The petition is disposed of in the above terms. No order as to costs.
09] In case the compensation is not paid within a period of six weeks from today, 12% interest will be paid on the amount of compensation unpaid from the date of expiry of six weeks from today and till payment or realization.
JUDGE PBP ::: Uploaded on - 23/08/2017 ::: Downloaded on - 24/08/2017 01:54:50 :::