Bombay High Court
Municipal Council vs Bhanudas Jayawanta Sonawane on 16 December, 2013
Bench: R.V. Ghuge
( 1 ) Writ Petition No.3420 of 2013
IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE OF BOMBAY
BENCH AT AURANGABAD
WRIT PETITION NO.3420 OF 2013
Municipal Council, Sillod,
Through it's Chief Officer,
Karbhari S/o. Shankar Divekar,
Age-42 years, Occu-Service,
R/o. At present Sillod,
Dist. Aurangabad PETITIONER
VERSUS
Bhanudas Jayawanta Sonawane,
Age-22 years, Occu- -
R/o. Bharat Nagar, Sillod,
Tq. Sillod, Dist. Aurangabad RESPONDENT
Mr.S.D.Hiwrekar, Advocate for petitioner.
Mr.A.S.Shelke, Advocate for respondent.
(CORAM : RAVINDRA V.GHUGE, J.)
DATE : 16/12/2013
JUDGMENT :
1. Rule. Rule made returnable forthwith and heard finally by
consent of the parties.
2. Petitioner is challenging the award dtd. 18/01/2012 passed by
the Labour Court, Aurangabad in Ref. (I.D.A.) No.12 of 2001.
( 2 ) Writ Petition No.3420 of 2013
3. Contention of the petitioner is as under :-
(a) Respondent was working on daily wages from 03/08/1990 till
16/07/1996.
(b) Respondent was orally terminated.
(c) A reference bearing Ref. I. D. A. No. 12/2001 came to be
registered before the Labour Court, Aurangabad.
(d) The petitioner, by inadvertence and oversight, did not even
appoint an advocate to contest the said proceeding.
(e) The award delivered on 18/01/2012 is therefore an ex-parte
award.
(f) No effort was made to have the Award set aside within 30 days
of its publication.
(g) The respondent is still not re-instated in employment.
(h) Issue involves public employment and therefore a proper
hearing needs to be given Lest there would be a miscarriage of
justice.
(i) If reasonable costs are awarded and the matter is remanded
back to the Labour Court, Aurangabad, the petitioner would
contest the said reference proceeding and assist the Court in
its proper adjudication.
4. Learned Adv.Mr.Shelke for the respondent employee submits
that :-
( 3 ) Writ Petition No.3420 of 2013
(a) The proceedings were conducted from 2001 till 18/01/2012.
(b) At every stage in the proceedings, Labour Court gave an
opportunity to the petitioner.
(c) There was no response at all from the petitioner.
(d) The respondent has been terminated in 1996 and is out of
employment till this date in spite of an award dated
18/01/2012 having been passed.
(e) The respondent is not re-instated in employment and is facing
starvation.
(f) The award dated 18/01/2012 is delayedly challenged on
05/04/2013.
(g) Negligence and laxity on the part of the petitioner is writ large
on the face of record and similar is its conduct in filing this
petition delayedly thereby increasing the agonies of the
respondent employee.
(h) Petition be therefore dismissed.
( 4 ) Writ Petition No.3420 of 2013
5. I have gone through the petition paper book with the
assistance of the learned advocates and have considered the rival
submissions.
6. The petitioner may be justified in stating that an issue of
public employment is involved. However, the petitioner's absence,
laxity and non participation in the proceedings has led to the passing
of an ex-parte Award directing the re-instatement of the respondent.
Such apathy towards litigation needs to be deprecated. Government
authorities need to be extremely careful in court matters and should
fix responsibility on such officers whose negligence and apathy lands
the department in such situations. Negligent officers need to be
penalized for their laxity in such cases.
7. Though, in this fact situation, an opportunity of hearing needs
to be given to the petitioner, the respondent employee needs to be
compensated since the entire proceedings would be reversed by
remanding the matter back to the Labour Court for enabling the
petitioner to file its written statement, cross examine the respondent
and lead its oral evidence. The hardships being suffered by the
( 5 ) Writ Petition No.3420 of 2013
employee would therefore be aggravated and he would have to
continue to suffer the rigours of litigation.
8. In the light of the above, ends of justice would be met by
issuing the following directions :-
(a) The impugned award dtd. 18/01/2012 is quashed and set aside
subject to the condition that the petitioner shall pay an amount
of Rs.1,00,000/- to the respondent within a period of eight
weeks.
(b) Reference (I.D.A.) No.12 of 2001 shall stand relegated to the
learned Labour Court, Aurangabad and be decided by
giving the petitioner a reasonable opportunity in the matter of
filing its written statement, cross examining the respondent
employee, recording oral and documentary evidence.
(c) An amount of Rs.1,00,000/- be deposited by the petitioner on
or before 14/02/2014 before the Labour Court at
Aurangabad. Respondent can withdraw the said amount as
compensation for the re-hearing of the reference.
(d) The Ref. (I.D.A.) No. 12 of 2001 would be restored and decided
within a period of six months after the amount of Rs.
1,00,000/- is deposited in the Labour Court.
( 6 ) Writ Petition No.3420 of 2013
(e) The Labour Court shall make every endeavour to decide the
reference within a period of six months, during which period
the petitioner shall pay an amount of Rs.5,000/- per month to
the respondent, by depositing it in the Court on or before the
10th day of each month from February 2014. The respondent
all be at liberty to withdraw the said amount, every month.
(f) Condition of depositing Rs.1,00,000/- on or before 14/02/2014
shall be a condition precedent for restoration of Ref. I.D.A.No.
12/2001. If the same is not made, this order shall stand
recalled and the award dated 18/01/2012 shall continue to be
in operation.
(g) Both the parties shall appear before the Labour Court,
Aurangabad on 17/02/2014 and extend co-operation to the
Court without seeking unnecessary adjournments.
9. With these directions, petition is partly allowed. Rule is made
absolute in terms of the above directions.
( RAVINDRA V.GHUGE, J.)
khs/Dec.2013/wp3420-13
