Judgment 1 wp1678.10.odt
IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY,
NAGPUR BENCH, NAGPUR.
WRIT PETITION NO. 1678 OF 2010
1. The Executive Engineer,
Special Project Division,
Amravati, Tq. & District :
Amravati.
2. The Sub Divisional Officer,
Public Works Sub Division,
Chandur Railway, Tq. Chandur
Rly, District : Amravati.
.... PETITIONERS.
// VERSUS //
Ramesh Krushnarao Deshmukh,
Aged about 45 years,
R/o. Rajura, Tq. Chandur Railway,
District : Amravati.
.... RESPONDENT
.
___________________________________________________________________
Shri N.R.Patil, A.G.P. for Petitioners.
Shri N.R.Saboo, Advocate for Respondent.
___________________________________________________________________
CORAM : Z.A.HAQ, J.
DATED : NOVEMBER 09, 2017.
ORAL JUDGMENT :
1. Heard.
2. The petitioners (employer) have challenged the award passed by the Labour Court answering the reference in favour of the respondent/ ::: Uploaded on - 20/11/2017 ::: Downloaded on - 21/11/2017 23:54:59 ::: Judgment 2 wp1678.10.odt employee and directing the employer to reinstate the employee with continuity of service. The claim of the employee for back-wages is rejected.
3. The undisputed facts are that the respondent/employee was engaged from 30th January, 1984 till 1st November, 1985 and was not continued from 1st November, 1985. The Labour Court, after considering the evidence has recorded a finding of fact that the respondent/ employee was in employment for more than 240 days continuously in the year preceding his termination. The employer has not been able to point out any perversity in the finding of fact recorded by the Labour Court.
4. The employer contends that the claim made by the employee was a stale claim having been made after more than 10 years and therefore, the Labour Court should not have granted relief to the employee. The submission cannot be accepted in the facts of the case. The Labour Court has considered this aspect of delay and laches in paragraph 12 of the impugned order. I see no reason to interfere with the conclusions recorded by the Labour Court on this point.
5. The only point which is required to be considered is, whether it is right on the part of the Labour Court to direct the reinstatement of the respondent/employee after 24 years.
::: Uploaded on - 20/11/2017 ::: Downloaded on - 21/11/2017 23:54:59 :::
Judgment 3 wp1678.10.odt
6. The learned A.G.P. has rightly relied on the judgment given by the Hon'ble Supreme Court in the case of Incharge Officer vs. Shankar Shetty, reported in (2010) 9 SCC 126, which in my view, covers the point to be decided in the present petition. The learned A.G.P. has also pointed out the judgment given by this Court in Writ Petition No. 4568 of 2009 on 27 th April, 2017 in which the respondent was engaged/ employed by the present petitioners along with the present respondent.
Considering the proposition laid down in the judgment given in the case of Shankar Shetty (supra) and also considering the judgment given in Writ Petition No.4568 of 2009, in my view, the impugned order is required to be modified and it has to be held that instead of reinstatement, the respondent/ employee is entitled for compensation.
7. Hence, the following order:
The directions given by the Labour Court to the petitioners to reinstate the respondent/ employee are set aside.
The petitioners shall pay Rs.Fifty Thousand as compensation in lieu of reinstatement to the respondent-employee till 30 th January, 2018. If the petitioners are unable to pay the amount directly to the respondent- employee, the amount shall be deposited before the Labour Court, Amravati till 30th January, 2018 and on deposit of the amount the same shall be given to the respondent/ employee.
::: Uploaded on - 20/11/2017 ::: Downloaded on - 21/11/2017 23:54:59 :::
Judgment 4 wp1678.10.odt If the petitioners fail to pay/ deposit the amount till 30 th January, 2018, they will be liable to pay interest @ 9% per annum to the respondent/employee, the interest being chargeable from today till the amount is paid/ deposited.
The order passed by the Labour Court is modified accordingly. The petition is partly allowed in the above terms. In the circumstances, the parties to bear their own costs.
JUDGE RRaut..
::: Uploaded on - 20/11/2017 ::: Downloaded on - 21/11/2017 23:54:59 :::