Bombay High Court
Ramvilas vs Bharat on 11 October, 2013
Bench: R.V. Ghuge
( 1 ) Writ Petition No.3589 of 2010
IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE OF BOMBAY
BENCH AT AURANGABAD
WRIT PETITION NO.3589 OF 2010
Ramvilas S/o.Pandurang Lohiya,
Age - 40 years, Occu-Business,
R/o.Tilak Nagar,
Latur PETITIONER
VERSUS
Bharat S/o.Gopinath Chavan,
Age-45 years, Occu-
R/o.Mhada Colony, Kava Road,
Latur, Dist.Latur RESPONDENT
Mr.S.S.Rathi, Advocate for petitioner.
Mr.A.V.Patil, Advocate for respondent.
( CORAM : RAVINDRA V.GHUGE, J. )
DATE : 11/10/2013
ORAL JUDGMENT :
1. Rule. Rule made returnable forthwith by consent of the
parties and heard finally. The petitioner in this writ petition assails
an award dated 05/03/2010 delivered by the learned Labour Court,
Latur on an application filed by the respondent u/s. 33(C)(2) of The
Industrial Disputes Act, 1947 (Hereinafter referred to as 'The Act'). It
was the contention of the respondent that he was engaged as a
Driver on a car bearing registration no.MH-24-2781 which was jointly
owned by the petitioner's family. It was further contended that he
( 2 ) Writ Petition No.3589 of 2010
had so worked from Diwali 2003 to Diwali 2004 for the said family. It
was claimed that his monthly wages were unpaid for the said period,
which finally accumulated to approximately Rs.38,000/-. The other
contentions in his application are not germane at this stage.
2. The petitioner, in response to the said claim before the learned
Labour Court, had taken a stand that the respondent was employed
for maintenance of garden and that the said car was owned by
Mrs.Rajkumari Lohiya, who is the wife of the proprietor of the Firm
Lohiya Agro Industries. It is an admitted position that Lohiya Agro
Industries was not impleaded as a respondent in the Court below.
The said application I.D.A.No.1/2005 was allowed by the impugned
award dated 05/03/2010 and the petitioner herein was directed to
pay an amount of Rs.38,000/- as unpaid salary alongwith interest @
12% p.a. from the date of filing of the application and with costs of
Rs.2,000/-.
3. It is an admitted position in light of the contentions made by
the learned counsel for the parties that the said car belongs to
Mrs.Lohiya. However, the respondent herein contended that the car
was owned by the family. In proceedings u/s. 33(C)(2) of The Act,
like the present one, if basic questions are raised as to whether there
was an employment given to the respondent employee, whether
employer employee relationship exists between the parties and as to
whether the petitioner herein could be termed as an industry, they
need to be adjudicated upon. Learned counsel for the parties have
( 3 ) Writ Petition No.3589 of 2010
informed the Court that an issue as regards such relationship, status
of the respondent as a workman and the petitioner being an industry
was not framed, despite pleadings to that effect.
4. This Court has recently concluded in National Textile
Corporation (WR) Ltd., [formerly known as Poddar Mills (UC)]
Vs.Ravindra Ramchandra Gavade and others, reported at 2013
III CLR 356, that a claim of a workman u/s. 33(C)(2) capable of
being computed in terms of money, can be adjudicated by the Labour
Court. In 2012 I CLR 818, Vishnu Kumar Mangala Case, the
Division Bench of the Delhi High Court and similarly the Division
bench of the Andhra Pradesh High Court in M.Narsimha Reddy
S/o.Bali Reddy and another Vs/.Management A.D.Dairy
Dev.Co.op.Fed Ltd., reported at 2013 I CLR 117, have concluded
that when the basis of a claim is disputed, the claim could be outside
the scope of Section 33(C)(2).
5. As such, in the light of the contentious issues, unless the issue
of the status of the parties and the relationship between the parties
is decided, the jurisdiction of the learned Labour Court and the
applicability of section 33(C)(2) of the Act would be in question.
Having not dealt with these material aspects by the Labour Court,
the impugned award is unsustainable. Both the parties have fairly
stated that if a direction to the Labour Court to cast an issue to that
extent is given, they are willing to go before the learned Labour Court
( 4 ) Writ Petition No.3589 of 2010
restricting themselves to leading further evidence only on this issue.
I find that the ends of justice would be met if the impugned award is
quashed and set aside and the matter is remanded back to the
learned Labour Court, Latur for framing an issue as stated above and
giving the parties an opportunity to lead oral and documentary
evidence to that extent.
6. In the light of the above, the impugned award dated
05/03/2010 is hereby quashed and set aside. Application I.D.A.No.
1/2005 is remitted back to the learned Labour Court, Latur with a
direction to cast an issue as regards the status of the litigating
parties and their inter-se relationship. The oral and documentary
evidence already adduced on record can be utilized by the Lower
Court besides allowing the parties to lead evidence on the issue
newly framed. Both the parties undertake not to seek undue
adjournments and enable the learned Labour Court to decide the
matter afresh within a period of 6 months from today.
7. Learned counsel for the petitioner states that an amount of Rs.
38,000/- has been deposited in this Court and the same be
transmitted to the learned Labour Court, Latur, to be invested in a
fixed deposit for an initial period of 6 months. Adv.Mr.Patil for the
respondent has no objection for the same. As such Registry to
ensure that the said amount is transmitted to the learned Labour
Court, Latur forthwith with a further direction to the said Court to
invest the said amount in a Nationalized Bank for a period of six
( 5 ) Writ Petition No.3589 of 2010
months.
8. With these directions, petition is partly allowed. No order as to
costs.
( RAVINDRA V.GHUGE, J. )
khs/Oct. 2013/wp3589-10
