Bombay High Court
Narayan Dhondiba Jadhav vs Nagar Parishad Ambajogai on 11 August, 2016
Bench: R.V. Ghuge
1
IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE OF BOMBAY
BENCH AT AURANGABAD
WRIT PETITION NO.4297 OF 1995
The Chief Officer,
Nagar Parishad, Ambajogai,
Dist. Beed -- PETITIONER
VERSUS
Narayan Dhondiba Jadhav,
Age-Major, Occu-Business,
R/o C/o Trade Union Center,ig
Mangalwar Peth, Ambajogai,
Dist. Beed -- RESPONDENT
WITH
WRIT PETITION NO.5096 OF 1995
Narayan S/o Dhondiba Jadhav,
Age-34 years, Occu-Nil,
R/o Guruwar Peth, Ambajogai,
Tal.Ambajogai, Dist. Beed -- PETITIONER
VERSUS
Nagar Parishad Ambajogai,
Taluka Ambajogai, Dist. Beed,
Through its Chief Officer -- RESPONDENT
Mr.V.V.Bhavthankar, Advocate for the petitioner/employer.
Mr.A.N.Sabnis h/f Mr.S.V.Kulkarni, Advocate for the
respondent/employee.
( CORAM : RAVINDRA V. GHUGE, J.)
DATE : 11/08/2016
ORAL JUDGMENT :
1. The first petition is filed by the Nagar Parishad, Ambajogai,
which is the employer and the respondent is the employee. The
khs/AUGUST 2016/4297-d
second petition is filed by the same employee against the same Nagar
Parishad. For the sake of brevity, the parties would be referred to as
the "employer" and the "employee".
2. Both these petitions were admitted by this Court. It is jointly
stated that though this Court did not grant any interim relief to the
employer and the impugned award dated 27/09/1994 delivered by
the Labour Court, has not been stayed, the employee had been kept
out of employment.
3. I have considered the strenuous submissions of
Mr.Bhavthankar, learned Advocate for the employer and Mr.Sabnis
alongwith Mr.S.V.Kulkarni, learned Advocates for the employee.
4. There is no dispute that the employee had worked from
01/08/1980 and was orally disengaged on 30/11/1981, thereby
working for about 16 months with the employer. He was a "Safai
Kamgar" and his monthly salary at the time of his disengagement
was Rs.200/-.
5. The employee had raised an industrial dispute after 8 years of
his disengagement which was referred to the Labour Court as Ref.
khs/AUGUST 2016/4297-d
(IDA) No.17/1989. By the impugned award delivered on 27/09/1994,
the employee was granted reinstatement on time scale without back
wages, but with continuity from 01/02/1989 when he has raised an
industrial dispute.
6. Despite the strenuous submissions of Mr.Sabnis, the impugned
award deserves to be interfered with on 2 grounds. Firstly, that the
Labour Court could have only reinstated the employee in the position
in which he was disengaged. Benefits of permanency in the form of
time scale could not have been ordered by the Labour Court since
this issue falls beyond the jurisdiction of the Labour Court under
Section 2-A and 11-A of the Industrial Disputes Act, 1947.
7. Secondly, the impugned award deserves to be set aside even on
the ground of the employee having worked for only 16 months and
having been granted reinstatement despite being out of employment
for 14 years at the given time. As of today, the employee is out of
employment for the past 34 years and 9 months.
8. The Hon'ble Supreme Court has concluded in the following four
cases that where a short tenure of employment is followed by a long
spell of unemployment, compensation @ Rs.30,000/- per year of
khs/AUGUST 2016/4297-d
service put in, would be appropriate and practicable in lieu of
reinstatement with continuity and back wages :-
1. Assistant Engineer, Rajasthan State Agriculture Marketing
Board, Sub Division, Kota Vs. Mohanlal, 2013 LLR 1009,
2. Assistant Engineer, Rajasthan Development Corporation and
another Vs. Gitam Singh, (2013) 5 SCC 136,
3. BSNL Vs. Man Singh, (2012) 1 SCC 558,
4. Jagbir Singh Vs. Haryana State Agriculture Marketing Board,
(2009) 15 SCC 327.
9. As such, having worked for about 1½ years with the employer
and as he is out of employment for the past about 35 years, I deem it
proper to modify the impugned award and grant compensation of
Rs.45,000/- to the employee in lieu of reinstatement with continuity,
as has been directed by the Labour Court.
10. As such, the petition filed by the employer is partly allowed.
The impugned award dated 27/09/1994 is modified and is replaced
by a direction to the employer to pay an amount of Rs.45,000/- to the
employee within a period of 12 (twelve) weeks from today as lump
sum compensation, failing which, it shall attract interest @ 6% p.a.
from the date of the award.
khs/AUGUST 2016/4297-d
11. Rule is made partly absolute in the above terms.
Consequentially, the second petition filed by the employee is devoid of
merit and is, therefore, dismissed. Rule is discharged.
( RAVINDRA V. GHUGE, J.)
khs/AUGUST 2016/4297-d
