Bombay High Court
The Secretary Agricultural ... vs Namdeo Babruwan Phule on 5 April, 2016
Bench: R.V. Ghuge
1
IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE OF BOMBAY
BENCH AT AURANGABAD
WRIT PETITION NO.3856 OF 2016
1 The Secretary,
Agricultural Produce Market
Committee, Udgir, Tq. Udgir,
Dist. Latur.
2 The Chairman,
Agricultural Produce Market
Committee, Udgir, Tq. Udgir,
Dist. Latur. ig ..PETITIONERS
VERSUS
Shivnand s/o Vajinath Nashte,
Age : 30 years, Occu: Daily Wager,
R/o Krishna Nagar, Shelhal road, Udgir,
Tq. Udgir, Dist. Latur. ..RESPONDENT
WITH
WRIT PETITION NO.3857 OF 2016
1 The Secretary,
Agricultural Produce Market
Committee, Udgir, Tq. Udgir,
Dist. Latur.
2 The Chairman,
Agricultural Produce Market
Committee, Udgir, Tq. Udgir,
Dist. Latur. ..PETITIONERS
VERSUS
Balaji s/o Madhavrao Rotewad,
Age : 34 years, Occu: Daily Wager,
R/o Tondar, Tq. Udgir,
Dist. Latur. ..RESPONDENT
khs/April 2016/3856-d
WITH
WRIT PETITION NO.3871 OF 2016
1 The Secretary,
Agricultural Produce Market
Committee, Udgir, Tq. Udgir,
Dist. Latur.
2 The Chairman,
Agricultural Produce Market
Committee, Udgir, Tq. Udgir,
Dist. Latur. ..PETITIONERS
VERSUS
Nilkant s/o Vishwambar Mundhe,
Age : 31 years, Occu: Daily Wager,
R/o Dongarshelki, Tq. Udgir,
Dist. Latur. ..RESPONDENT
WITH
WRIT PETITION NO.3872 OF 2016
1 The Secretary,
Agricultural Produce Market
Committee, Udgir, Tq. Udgir,
Dist. Latur.
2 The Chairman,
Agricultural Produce Market
Committee, Udgir, Tq. Udgir,
Dist. Latur. ..PETITIONERS
VERSUS
Madhav s/o Panditrao Somuse,
Age : 30 years, Occu: Daily Wager,
R/o Samtanagar, Dam Road, Tq. Udgir,
Dist. Latur. ..RESPONDENT
WITH
WRIT PETITION NO.3873 OF 2016
khs/April 2016/3856-d
1 The Secretary,
Agricultural Produce Market
Committee, Udgir, Tq. Udgir,
Dist. Latur.
2 The Chairman,
Agricultural Produce Market
Committee, Udgir, Tq. Udgir,
Dist. Latur. ..PETITIONERS
VERSUS
Dattatraya s/o Balaji Bhoinwad,
Age : 29 years, Occu: Daily Wager,
R/o Takli, Tq. Udgir,
Dist. Latur. ..RESPONDENT
WITH
WRIT PETITION NO.3874 OF 2016
1 The Secretary,
Agricultural Produce Market
Committee, Udgir, Tq. Udgir,
Dist. Latur.
2 The Chairman,
Agricultural Produce Market
Committee, Udgir, Tq. Udgir,
Dist. Latur. ..PETITIONERS
VERSUS
Amol s/o Kishanrao Patil,
Age : 27 years, Occu: Daily Wager,
R/o Arasnal Post. Devarjan,
Tq. Udgir, Dist. Latur.
..RESPONDENT
WITH
WRIT PETITION NO.3875 OF 2016
khs/April 2016/3856-d
1 The Secretary,
Agricultural Produce Market
Committee, Udgir, Tq. Udgir,
Dist. Latur.
2 The Chairman,
Agricultural Produce Market
Committee, Udgir, Tq. Udgir,
Dist. Latur. ..PETITIONERS
VERSUS
Manmath @ Manoj s/o Havagiswami Mathapati (Swami)
Age : 26 years, Occu: Daily Wager,
R/o Somnathpur, Tq. Udgir,
Dist. Latur. ..RESPONDENT
WITH
WRIT PETITION NO.3876 OF 2016
1 The Secretary,
Agricultural Produce Market
Committee, Udgir, Tq. Udgir,
Dist. Latur.
2 The Chairman,
Agricultural Produce Market
Committee, Udgir, Tq. Udgir,
Dist. Latur. ..PETITIONERS
VERSUS
Dattatraya s/o Arjunrao Biradar,
Age : 32 years, Occu: Daily Wager,
R/o Netragaon, Tq. Udgir,
Dist. Latur. ..RESPONDENT
WITH
WRIT PETITION NO.3877 OF 2016
1 The Secretary,
Agricultural Produce Market
Committee, Udgir, Tq. Udgir,
khs/April 2016/3856-d
Dist. Latur.
2 The Chairman,
Agricultural Produce Market
Committee, Udgir, Tq. Udgir,
Dist. Latur. ..PETITIONERS
VERSUS
Gajanan s/o Rajeshwar Debadwar,
Age : 30 years, Occu: Daily Wager,
R/o Gokul Niwas, Samarth Colony,
Tq. Udgir, Dist. Latur. ..RESPONDENT
ig WITH
WRIT PETITION NO.3879 OF 2016
1 The Secretary,
Agricultural Produce Market
Committee, Udgir, Tq. Udgir,
Dist. Latur.
2 The Chairman,
Agricultural Produce Market
Committee, Udgir, Tq. Udgir,
Dist. Latur. ..PETITIONERS
VERSUS
Namdeo s/o Babruwan Phule,
Age : 32 years, Occu: Daily Wager,
R/o Navandi, Tq. Udgir,
Dist. Latur. ..RESPONDENT
WITH
WRIT PETITION NO.3880 OF 2016
1 The Secretary,
Agricultural Produce Market
Committee, Udgir, Tq. Udgir,
Dist. Latur.
2 The Chairman,
khs/April 2016/3856-d
Agricultural Produce Market
Committee, Udgir, Tq. Udgir,
Dist. Latur. ..PETITIONERS
VERSUS
Rajeshwar s/o Ishwar Vasale,
Age : 38 years, Occu: Daily Wager,
R/o Bihand Uday Talkies, Udgir,
Tq. Udgir, Dist. Latur. ..RESPONDENT
WITH
WRIT PETITION NO.3881 OF 2016
1 The Secretary,
Agricultural Produce Market
Committee, Udgir, Tq. Udgir,
Dist. Latur.
2 The Chairman,
Agricultural Produce Market
Committee, Udgir, Tq. Udgir,
Dist. Latur. ..PETITIONERS
VERSUS
Bhagwan s/o Govindrao Biradar,
Age : 38 years, Occu: Daily Wager,
R/o Aenki, Tq. Udgir,
Dist. Latur. ..RESPONDENT
WITH
WRIT PETITION NO.3882 OF 2016
1 The Secretary,
Agricultural Produce Market
Committee, Udgir, Tq. Udgir,
Dist. Latur.
2 The Chairman,
Agricultural Produce Market
Committee, Udgir, Tq. Udgir,
Dist. Latur. ..PETITIONERS
khs/April 2016/3856-d
VERSUS
Namdeo s/o Prabhakar Baikare,
Age : 32 years, Occu: Daily Wager,
R/o Satala, Tq. Ahmedpur,
Dist. Latur. ..RESPONDENT
WITH
WRIT PETITION NO.3897 OF 2016
1 The Secretary,
Agricultural Produce Market
Committee, Udgir, Tq. Udgir,
Dist. Latur.
2 The Chairman,
Agricultural Produce Market
Committee, Udgir, Tq. Udgir,
Dist. Latur. ..PETITIONERS
VERSUS
Shivkumar s/o Vyankatrao Birajdar,
Age : 34 years, Occu: Daily Wager,
R/o Dhanegaon, Tq. Devani,
Dist. Latur. ..RESPONDENT
Mr.M.S.Deshmukh h/f Mr.U.L.Momale, Advocate for the petitioner.
Mr.N.V.Gaware h/f Mr.D.S.Kudale, Advocate for the respondent
( CORAM : RAVINDRA V. GHUGE, J.)
DATE : 05/04/2016
ORAL JUDGMENT :
1. Rule. Rule made returnable forthwith and heard finally by the
consent of the parties.
khs/April 2016/3856-d
2. The petitioners are aggrieved by the interim order dated
01/02/2016 below application Exh.U-2 passed u/s 30(2) of The
MRTU and PULP Act, 1971 by which all the respondents, who are
daily wagers, have been protected and the petitioners are directed not
to terminate their services till the decision of their complaints.
3.
The petitioners submit that it is an Agricultural Produce
Market Committee at Tal.Udgir, Dist.Latur. All these respondents,
who are identically placed and are working as daily wagers with the
petitioners, have put in services for periods ranging between 3 to 8
years. None of them have completed 240 days in the continuous and
uninterrupted service of the petitioners. None of them are entitled
for the protection u/s 25-B r/w 25-F, 25-G and 25-H of the I.D.Act,
1947.
4. He further submits that all the respondents were working as
and when the work was available and they would put in about 15 to
20 days intermittently in each month.
5. Mr.Deshmukh, therefore, strenuously criticizes the impugned
order on the ground that merely because the petitioners failed to file
khs/April 2016/3856-d
its written statement, the protection by the impugned order was
granted to the respondents. He further submits that no court can
grant a blanket and ultimate protection to an employee by directing
the employer not to terminate his services.
6. He further submits that all the respondents have preferred
complaints invoking Item Nos.4, 5, 6 and 9 of Schedule IV of the
MRTU and PULP Act, 1971. Unless it is established that the
petitioners are prima-facie guilty of unfair labour practices, no relief
could have been granted against the petitioners. He, therefore,
submits that the impugned order deserves to be quashed and set
aside. The petitioners have moved applications in each of the
complaints filed by the respondents, by which, the "No W.S. Order"
passed by the Industrial Court is sought to be recalled so as to
enable the petitioners to place its written statement on record and
contest the matter on its merits.
7. Mr.Gaware, learned Advocate supports the impugned order on
behalf of the respondents/employees. Contention is that once the
Industrial Court comes to a prima facie conclusion that the original
complainants have been working in the employment of the petitioners
for more than 240 days, they would be entitled for protection till their
khs/April 2016/3856-d
complaints are adjudicated upon so as to ensure that their claims are
not frustrated. He, therefore, supports the impugned order on the
ground that if the petitioners are allowed to terminate the
respondents, the complaints would be rendered infructuous.
8. He further submits that workers similarly situated as like the
respondents had filed Complaint (ULP) Nos. 61/2015 and 62/2015
before the Industrial Court praying for regularization and protection
against apprehended termination. These very petitioners settled the
dispute with those complainants and both the complaints were
disposed of under a settlement/compromise. Those complainants
were granted absorption on the condition that they gave up their
claim towards their past service benefits. He, therefore, submits
that the petitioners would be precluded from adopting a different
stand in this matter. He, therefore, prays for dismissal of the
petitions.
9. I have considered the submissions of the learned Advocates.
10. It is trite law, as laid down in the cases of Dilip s/
o Indrabhanji
Wawande v. Industrial Court, Nagpur and Ors. [1995 II CLR 897],
Ichalkaranji Municipal Council Vs. R.B.Taral [1999 LLJ II 70] and Jet Airways (I)
khs/April 2016/3856-d
Ltd. Vs. Jet Airways Thozhilalar Sangam [2001 (88) FLR 150], that final relief
cannot be granted at an interim stage. It is also settled law that an
employer cannot be placed under an embargo on terminating the
services for any reason whatsoever. It, however, cannot be ignored
that the claim of the complainants set out in the complaints ought
not to be frustrated.
11.
In the above backdrop, a Court dealing with the claim of
regularization has to consider the facts of the case seriously so as to
ensure that employees are not foisted upon an employer and an
employer is not compelled to continue an employee merely because
his claim for regularization is pending. Nevertheless, an employer
can be placed under an embargo that it shall not terminate the
services of the employees without following the due procedure of law.
However, there cannot be a blanket prohibition on termination.
12. In the instant case, on account of negligence of the petitioners,
written statements in each of the complaints filed by the
respondents/employees and written 'SAY' in response to the
application for interim relief, have not been filed before the Industrial
Court. It is in nobody's interest that a proceeding of this nature be
decided ex-parte. In fact, ends of justice are met if the litigating sides
khs/April 2016/3856-d
are given adequate and equal opportunities to contest the matter,
which leads to an adjudication on its merits.
13. In the light of the above, I am of the view that the petitioners
deserve to be granted an opportunity to file its Written Statement and
Say before the Industrial Court. The application for recalling "No
W.S. Order" filed on record can, therefore, be dealt with by the
Industrial Court, keeping this object in view.
14. The impugned orders have been passed only upon hearing the
respondents and in view of the fact that there was no written
statement and say of the petitioners on record. The impugned orders
u/s 30(2) can be subjected to a review by the proviso to sub section
(2).
15. Considering this legal position, I am of the view that rather
than this Court prejudging the matter, ends of justice would be met
by permitting the petitioners to file an application seeking review of
the impugned orders under the proviso to section 30(2). This would
enable the petitioners to make out a case as against the claim of the
respondents and the Industrial Court would therefore be in a
position to deal with the impugned order or cause some amendment,
khs/April 2016/3856-d
addition or review of the same.
16. Mr.Deshmukh submits that all these respondents have
preferred criminal complaints u/s 48(1) before the Labour Court at
Latur. The petitioners are willing to continue to offer work to the
respondents as was being offered prior to the filing of the complaints
till the Industrial Court considers its application for review. These
criminal complaints could, therefore, be disposed of.
17. Mr.Gaware submits that the statement of the petitioners can be
recorded that they would continue to treat the respondents as they
were treated and offered work prior to the filing of the complaints in
the Industrial Court and on such a statement being recorded,
respondents would proceed to withdraw the complaints pending in
the Labour Court.
18. Mr.Deshmukh submits, on instructions, that the work, as was
been given to the respondents prior to their filing of the complaints
before the Industrial Court, would be continued to be given till the
impugned orders are subjected to a decision of the Industrial Court
on the review applications, that would be filed by the petitioners.
khs/April 2016/3856-d
19. In view of the above, these petitions are partly allowed.
Statement of the petitioners as recorded above would assure the
respondents of work as was being made available to them prior to the
the filing of the complaints. Consequentially, the respondents shall
proceed to withdraw their criminal (ULP) cases from the Labour
Court within 2 (two) weeks from today.
20.
The petitioners shall file their written statement and say before
the Industrial Court. Considering the peculiar facts as recorded
above, the Industrial Court shall accordingly proceed to allow the
petitioners to file their written statement and say.
21. In the event, the petitioners file an application seeking a review
of the impugned orders under the Proviso to Section 30(2), the
Industrial Court shall decide the said applications after hearing the
litigating sides within a period of 10 (ten) weeks from the date of
filing of the review applications.
22. Needless to state the Industrial Court shall decide the said
applications on their own merits keeping in view the settled position
of Law and after considering the reply of the respondents to the
review applications.
khs/April 2016/3856-d
23. Rule is made partly absolute in the above terms.
( RAVINDRA V. GHUGE, J.)
khs/April 2016/3856-d
