Meera Rajendra Jadhav vs The State Of Maharashtra
2013 Latest Caselaw 75 Bom

                                    1/17
                                                                     27-wp.80.2013.doc

nsc.
            IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY




                                                                            
                    CIVIL APPELLATE JURISDICTION

                       WRIT PETITION NO.80 OF 2013




                                                    
       1) Meera Rajendra Jadhav
          Widow of the deceased, Age : 32 years,




                                                   
       2) Mast. Chetan Rajendra Jadhav
          Son of the deceased, Age : 13 years,

       3) Kum. Akanksha Rajendra Jadhav
          Daughter of the deceased, Age : 13 years,




                                          
       4) Kum. Rajeshwari Rajendra Jadhav
                            
          Daughter of the deceased, Age : 9 years,

       5) Shri Nivruti Digambar Jadhav
                           
          Father of the deceased, Age : 64 years,

       6) Smt.Kantabai Nivruti Jadhav
          Mother of the deceased, Age 57 years,
           

          (Petitioners No.2 to 4, through their
          Mother and natural guardian,
        



          i.e. the Petitioner No.1)
          All residing at Gosavi Vaasti,
          Happy Colony, Lane No.3,
          Behind Janata Sahakari Bank,





          Kothrud, Pune.                                 ...Petitioners.

                v/s.

       1) The State of Maharashtra,
          Through Secretary,





          Home Department,
          Mantralaya, Mumbai - 400 021.

       2) The Administrative Judge,
          Labour Court, P.M.T. Building,
          Swargate, Pune - 411 037.




                                                    ::: Downloaded on - 27/11/2013 20:28:39 :::
                                    2/17
                                                                   27-wp.80.2013.doc

    3) Government Treasury Office,
       Collector Compound,




                                                                          
       Pune - 411 001.

    4) Auditor General of State of Maharashtra,




                                                  
       101, Pratishtha Bhavan,
       Maharshi Karve Marg,
       Churchgate, Mumbai.                              ...Respondents.




                                                 
                                    ---
    Mr.A.M.Gokhale, for the petitioners.
    Mr.S.K.Shinde, G.P. for respondent nos.1 and 4.
    Mr.A.D.Kango, AGP for respondent no.2.
    Mr.Vinod Joshi, for respondent no.3.




                                         
                                   ---
                           
                           CORAM: A. S. OKA &
                                  REVATI MOHITE DERE, JJ.

OCTOBER 22, 2013.

Judgment (Per A.S.Oka, J.):

1. Heard learned counsel appearing for the petitioners,

learned Government Pleader for the respondent nos.1 and 4

and learned counsel appearing for respondent no.3. The

petitioners are claimants in a Claim Petition filed under the

Workmen's Compensation Act, 1923 before the Commissioner

for Workmen's Compensation at Pune. The Commissioner for

Workmen's Compensation at Pune is the learned Judge of the

Labour Court at Pune. The petitioners are the legal

representatives of deceased Rajendra Nivrutti Jadhav who

27-wp.80.2013.doc

suffered employment injury and lost his life. By the Judgment

and Order dated 30th November, 2010, compensation was

ordered to be paid to the petitioners. It appears that the

compensation amount was deposited by the Insurer of the

employer. In December, 2010, the establishment of the

Commissioner for Workmen's Compensation issued four

cheques in the sum of Rs.39,793/-, Rs.40,000/-, Rs.39,793/-

and Rs.6,15,000/-. The cheque in the sum of Rs.6,15,000/-

represented the investment to be made as per Clause - 4 of

the operative part of the Judgment and Order dated 30 th

November, 2010. Another cheque in the sum of Rs.40,000/-

was drawn in favour of the first petitioner who is the widow of

the deceased. The cheque in the sum of Rs.39,793/- was

drawn in favour of the fifth petitioner who is the father of the

deceased. The cheque in the sum of Rs.39,793/- was drawn in

the name of the sixth petitioner who is the mother of the

deceased. The said cheques were kept ready on 28 th

December, 2010 but the petitioners did not collect the said

cheques and therefore, the validity of cheques expired. On 20 th

June, 2011, the fifth and the sixth petitioners made an

application before the learned Commissioner for issuing fresh

27-wp.80.2013.doc

cheques in which it was stated that they were not aware about

the where-abouts of the first petitioner.

2. The grievance made in this petition is that even after

long lapse of time, fresh cheques/revalidated cheques have not

been issued. Therefore, this petition under Article 226 of the

Constitution of India was filed by the petitioners seeking a writ

of mandamus directing the second and the third respondents

(learned Administrative Judge of the Labour Court and the

Government Treasury Office) to release the compensation

amount along with interest at the rate of 12% p.a. from 20 th

June, 2011. A direction has been issued for initiating an enquiry

into the cause of non-payment of the compensation due and

payable to the petitioners. There is another prayer seeking a

writ of mandamus which is prayer clause (d) which read thus :-

"(d) The Respondent No.2 and other Hon'ble Motor Accident Tribunals, Hon'ble Railway Accident Tribunals, Hon'ble Court of Commissioner for

Workmen's Compensation, in the State of Maharashtra, be directed to open account in any nationalized bank to issue cheques to the accident victims instead of Government Treasury Office, to avoid technical, delayed procedure of Government

27-wp.80.2013.doc

Treasury Office."

3. On 30th January, 2013, the petition came up before

this Court, when this Court called for the Report from the

learned Commissioner. This Court directed that fresh cheques or

revalidated cheques should be immediately issued. There were

several directions issued thereafter by this Court from time to

time.

4. At this stage, it will be necessary to make a reference

to order dated 1st August, 2013, passed by this Court and in

particular paragraph 6 thereof. Perhaps on the basis of this

direction that the Government issued a Government Resolution

dated 12th September, 2013, by which the Administrators of

PLA Accounts were permitted to operate PLA Accounts by

opening accounts with the State Bank of India/State Bank of

Hyderabad. The said Government Resolution permitted even

the Commissioner under the Workmen's Compensation Act,

1923 to open PLA Account with the State Bank of India. Today,

the learned Government Pleader has tendered on record

Government decision dated 17th October, 2013 by which the

27-wp.80.2013.doc

earlier method of operating PLA Accounts with the Government

Treasury Office, was ordered to be continued. The learned

Government Pleader stated that as the actual working of the

said Government Resolution dated 12 th September, 2013

created several difficulties, the same was withdrawn and the

Government is considering of issuing a fresh Resolution.

5. With the assistance of the learned counsel appearing

for the petitioners and the learned Government Pleader, we

have perused the affidavits filed on record by Treasury Officer

as well as the Report submitted by the learned Administrative

Judge of the Labour Court at Pune.

6. The report of the learned Administrative Judge of the

Labour Court discloses that though the application was made by

the petitioners on 20th June, 2013 for issuing fresh cheques, the

said application was filed in the disposed of Claim Application

and the orders of the Administrative Judge were not obtained on

the said application by the Advocate concerned, the parties

concerned or the concerned staff. However, when it was

noticed that fresh cheques were required to be issued, on 28 th

27-wp.80.2013.doc

December, 2011, a letter was issued by the office of the Labour

Court to the Treasury Office requesting for grant of permission

for issuing fresh cheques. It is stated that as there was no

response from the Treasury office, the second letter/reminder

was issued on 14 February, 2012 to the Treasury Office

enclosing therewith a copy of the earlier letter. It is alleged

that though the Treasury Office did not respond in writing, orally

a direction was issued to the accountant of the Labour Court to

furnish a copy of the relevant P.L.A cash book, showing the debit

entries pertaining to the amounts of these time barred cheques.

It is stated that along with a letter dated 21 st June, 2012,

relevant page of PLA cash book was supplied to the Treasury

Office by the Labour Court. Again a request was made to the

Treasury Office to grant permission to issue fresh cheques. It is

stated that the Treasury Office orally asked the Accounts Clerk

of the Office of the Labour Court to furnish non-drawal

certificate of the State Bank of India, Treasury Branch showing

that the amounts pertaining to these time barred cheques were

not paid by the said Bank. Accordingly, the office of the Labour

Court on 2nd August, 2012 addressed a letter to the Manager of

the said Bank. The Bank was requested to furnish the

27-wp.80.2013.doc

necessary information. Accordingly information was furnished

by the Bank along with its letter dated 21 st August, 2012 which

was forwarded to the Treasury Office on 24 th August, 2012. It is

stated that till 17th December, 2012, there was no response

from the Treasury Office and therefore, on that day a reminder

was issued to the Treasury Office. It is stated that only on 2 nd

January, 2013 that the Treasury Office issued permission for

issuing fresh cheques. Thereafter, fresh cheques were issued to

the concerned petitioners and an amount of Rs.6,15,000/- has

been invested in terms of the Judgment of the learned

Commissioner. It is contended in the Report that there is

absolutely no default on the part of the office of the Labour

Court.

7. On 9th April, 2013, Mr.Ashok Hingane, Additional

Treasury Officer, Pune Treasury, Pune has filed an affidavit. It is

contended that the original letter dated 28th December, 2011

issued by the Labour Court was not at all received by his office

and a copy of the said letter along with letter dated 14 th

February, 2012 was received by the Treasury Office on 20 th

March, 2012. He has stated in the reply that the Labour Court

27-wp.80.2013.doc

was called upon to comply with the certain queries referred in

letter dated 30th March, 2012. It is stated that the cancelled

cheques were required to be produced. It is stated that partial

compliance was made by the Labour Court by letters dated 21 st

June, 2012 and 24th August, 2012. It is alleged that the

Administrator of the PLA Account of Labour Court did not

approach the office of the Treasury Officer for reconciliation of

the Accounts. It is alleged that by letter dated 30 th March,

2013, the Treasury Officer informed the Labour Court that the

amounts are wrongly credited in the Account of other Offices

due to mistake of the Labour Court which are now being

transferred to the proper Account. There is another affidavit

filed by the same officer dated 7th September, 2013. He has

reiterated that only on 20th March, 2012 that the request letter

of the Labour Court was received by the Treasury Office from

the Labour Court for grant of permission for issuing fresh

cheques. Again in the said affidavit the Treasury Office has set

out the procedure which is required to be followed. There is a

grievance made that compliances were not made by the office

of the Labour Court. Reliance is placed on Circulars dated 12 th

June, 1973 and 20th May, 1994 as well as the office instructions

27-wp.80.2013.doc

dated 30th March, 2012, which lay down the procedure. There is

also an affidavit filed by Madhukar Pandurang Vaidya, Incharge

Secretary. of the Labour Court, Pune dealing with various factual

aspects.

8. The learned counsel appearing for the petitioner

submitted that on 20th June, 2011, the petitioners applied to the

Labour Court for issuing fresh cheques and therefore, the

petitioners are entitled to interest atleast from that date till the

date on which the fresh cheques were issued. He submitted

that there is complete default and inaction on the part of the

administration of the Labour Court as well as the Treasury

Office, which resulted in gross delay in issuing fresh cheques.

9. The learned Government Pleader invited our attention

to the procedure which is required to be followed by the

Treasury Office. Reliance was placed on the provisions of

Maharashtra Treasury Manual. He pointed out that the peculiar

procedure is required to be followed to ensure that no double

payment is made to anyone. He urged that the Officers of the

Treasury Office have followed the prescribed procedure and the

27-wp.80.2013.doc

delay may be due to the fact that there was no proper

coordination between the office of the Treasury Office and the

office of the Labour Court. He, therefore, urged that this is not

a case where interest can be ordered to be paid as there is no

deliberate default or inaction.

10. We have considered the submissions. We have

perused the affidavits of the officer of the Treasury Office and

the report of the Administrative Judge of the Labour Court.

The offices of the Commissioner for the Workmen's

Compensation are not empowered by the State Government

Office to open and/or operate PLA Accounts through

Nationalised Banks. Hence, the cheques are required to be

issued by the Labour Court drawn on the Treasury Office. Infact

the State Government corrected itself by issuing the

Government Resolution dated 12th September, 2013 by granting

permission to various establishments to open PLA Account with

the State Bank of India. However, now the Government

Resolution has been withdrawn. If the Commissioners under the

Workmen's Compensation had a PLA Account in a Nationalised

Bank, the petitioners would not have faced the difficulties which

27-wp.80.2013.doc

they have faced.

11. After considering the report of the Administrative

Judge and the affidavits of the Treasury Officer, we find that

there is nothing on record to show that the request made by the

Labour Court for grant of permission to issue fresh cheques

was received by the Treasury Office prior to 20 th March, 2012.

Therefore, we will have to proceed on the footing that the letter

of the Labour Court requesting for grant of permission to issue

fresh cheques was received on 20th March, 2012 by the Treasury

Office. It is true that the Treasury Office was required to follow

the procedure which is prescribed. In the facts of the case,

there is no dispute that the cheques were not encashed and the

cheques had become time barred as the same were not even

collected by the petitioners before the period of its validity

expired. We have noted earlier that the three cheques in the

sum of Rs.39,793/-, Rs.40,000/- an Rs.39,793/- were issued on

12th January, 2011 in the names of the fifth, first and sixth

petitioners respectively on the basis of the Judgment and Order

dated 23rd April, 2010. As per Clause - 4 of the Judgment and

Order of the Labour Court, the sum of Rs.6,15,000/- was to be

27-wp.80.2013.doc

invested in the names of second to fourth petitioners who were

minors at the relevant time in the Swargate Branch of Bank of

Maharashtra at Pune. Surprisingly, the office of the Labour

Court did not invest the said amount with the Bank of

Maharashtra, Swargate Branch, though a cheque was issued in

the name of the said Bank on 20th December, 2010. This may

be due to the reason that the Fixed Deposit was to be in the

name of second to fourth petitioners and their guardian was not

present for signing the necessary documents.

12. It is true that on 20 th June, 2011 the petitioner made

an application to the Labour Court for issuing fresh cheques.

Perhaps neither the petitioners nor their Advocate followed up

the matter and instead of filing an appropriate application

directly before the Administrative Judge of the Labour Court,

the sixth petitioner addressed a letter dated 30 th April, 2012, to

the Hon'ble the Chief Justice of this Court.

13. We cannot ignore that the Workmen's Compensation

Act, 1923 is a beneficial legislation and it was the duty of the

State to ensure that the compensation is paid to the petitioners

27-wp.80.2013.doc

at the earliest and within a reasonable time. The Treasury

Office had received the application of the Labour Court on 20 th

March, 2012 by which a simple permission was sought to issue

fresh cheques. As we have noted earlier, ultimately the

permission to issue fresh cheques was issued by the Treasury

Office on 2nd January, 2013. The particulars of the fresh cheques

issued have been set out in the Report of the Administrative

Office of the Labour Court. On 24th January, 2013, the amount

of Rs.6,15,000/- was invested with the Bank of Maharashtra.

14. All concerned knew that as of 20th March, 2012, that

the four cheques had become time barred. The procedure for

grant of permission to issue fresh cheques took such a long

time of nine and half months. It took almost nine and half

months for the Treasury Office to grant permission to issue fresh

cheques, in lieu of the cheques which were time barred long

back. The first, fifth and sixth petitioners suffered loss due to

this delay. Even the second and fourth petitioners in whose

name the amount of Rs.6,15,000/- was to be invested were

deprived of the interest on the said amount for the said period.

It is only due to the peculiar procedure followed by the State

27-wp.80.2013.doc

that so much time was consumed for grant of permission to

issue fresh cheques. The permission was granted after filing of

the present Writ Petition. The Petitioners have suffered though

there is no fault on their part. The delay in granting permission

to issue fresh cheques is arbitrary and unreasonable.

15. The fact is that the petitioners - claimants suffered

monetary loss on account of peculiar procedure followed by the

State. The said delay is arbitrary and unreasonable. Therefore

atleast for the period from 20th March, 2012 to 2nd January,

2013, the State is liable to pay interest to the petitioners at the

rate of 8% per annum.

16. There cannot be any dispute that for payment of

compensation payable under the Motor Vehicle Act, 1988 and

the Workmen's Compensation Act, 1923 the procedure of

issuing cheques of compensation has to be very simple and

litigant friendly. The procedure should aim at very expeditious

disbursement of compensation. One method of doing so is

permitting the members of the Tribunals/Commissioners under

the Workmen Compensation to open PLA Accounts with a

27-wp.80.2013.doc

Nationalised Bank. If that is done, the establishment of the

said Tribunal or Commissioner, as the case may be, will be in a

position to immediately issue cheques to the claimants. A

provision has to be made to ensure that wherever it is possible,

the compensation amount is directly transferred to the Accounts

of the respective claimants. Only when such direct transfer is

not possible that the amounts should be paid over by the

cheques. The State Government will have to take appropriate

decision on this aspect.

17. Hence, we dispose of the petition by passing the following order :-

ORDER

(i) We direct the State of Maharashtra to pay Simple

Interest to the first, fifth and sixth petitioners on the amounts of Rs.40,000/-, Rs.39,793/- and Rs.39,793/-

respectively from 20th March, 2012 till 2nd January, 2013, at the rate of 8% per annum ;

(ii) We direct the State to pay simple interest on the sum

of Rs.6,15,000/- at the rate of 8% per annum for the aforesaid period to the second to fourth petitioners. The amount of interest payable to the second to fourth petitioners shall be paid over to the first petitioner on their behalf ;

27-wp.80.2013.doc

(iii) We direct the State Government to take appropriate

decision in terms of observations made by this Court

in the last paragraph of this Judgment and Order. We direct that the appropriate decision shall be taken on or before 13th December, 2013. The decision taken by

the State Government shall be placed on record along with an Affidavit ;

(iv) Interest amount payable as aforesaid shall be deposited in this Court on or before 13 th December,

2013. The withdrawal shall be permitted by the Registrar (Judicial - I) in terms of clauses (i) and (ii)

above ;

(v) Place the petition under the caption of 'Directions' on

16th December, 2013 for reporting compliance.

    (REVATI MOHITE DERE,J.)                      (A.S. OKA,J.)