Bombay High Court
P. Shankaranarayan And Ors vs The State Of Maharashtra And Ors on 30 August, 2016
Bench: Anoop V. Mohta
dgm 1 7-wp-6666-12.sxw
IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY
CIVIL APPELLATE JURISDICTION
WRIT PETITION NO. 6666 OF 2012
WITH
CIVIL APPLICATION (ST) NO.35018 OF 2013
P. Shankaranarayan and ors. .... Petitioners
vs
The State of Maharashtra and ors .... Respondents
Mr. P. K. Dhakephalkar, Senior Advocate with Mr. Amol P. Mhatre for
the petitioners.
Mr. Sandeep Babar, AGP for respondent Nos. 1 to 3.
Mr. Prasad Dani, Senior Advocate with Mr. Abhijit Patil i/by Mr.Ajay S.
Patil for respondent No.4.
Mr. Vijay P. Vaidya for respondent No.5.
CORAM: ANOOP V. MOHTA AND
G. S. KULKARNI, JJ.
DATE : August 30, 2016
ORAL JUDGMENT (Per G. S. Kulkarni J.):
Heard the learned counsel appearing for the parties.
2 The grievance of the Petitioners is as regards additional
compensation of Rs. 3.5 lacs which came to be distributed at the
hands of the then Hon'ble Guardian Minister to the employees of
Respondent No.5 - Standard Alkali Limited. The principal
dgm 2 7-wp-6666-12.sxw
grievance of the Petitioners in the writ petition is that as the
Petitioners are denied such additional compensation, there is a
representation dated 23.12.2008 made by the Petitioners to the then
Hon'ble Minister and other concerned Authorities and that this Court
should issue directions that the representation be decided.
3 It is not in dispute that there is a closure of Respondent
No.5 in the year 2005. The basis of the writ petition is an article in
the news paper which is annexed at page 46 of the Petition (Exhibit
"E" ) which records that the then Hon'ble Guardian Minister had
distributed additional compensation to the 57 workers of Respondent
No.5 on 22 June 2008. The Petitioners claim that they are similarly
situated and accordingly they approached the then Hon'ble Guardian
Minister that the Petitioners also be granted additional compensation.
It is stated that accordingly a meeting was held on 11.02.2009 on the
representation of the Petitioners. However, no action was taken.
4 We have perused the averments made in the Petition. We
have also gone through the various annexures to the writ petition.
What is pertinent is that the Joint Secretary of the Industries, Labour
dgm 3 7-wp-6666-12.sxw
and Power Department, by letter dated 30 June 2009 has informed,
under the Right to Information Act, that the amounts which came to
be paid to 57 workers have not been distributed on behalf of the
concerned Department and that there was no information available
with the said Department in that regard. What is further important to
be noted is that the Petitioners in paragraph 21 of the writ petition
have made a categorical averment that it has come to the knowledge
of the Petitioners that the amounts which were distributed by the
then Hon'ble Guardian Minister were being supplied by Respondent
No.5 company.
5 Considering the facts of the case and the claim as made by
the Petitioners, we are certain that we cannot grant any indulgence in
such a writ petition even to issue a direction to the Government to
consider the representation. The rights of the workers, if any, to seek
retrenchment compensation or any such compensation are required
to be espoused before the appropriate forum under he relevant
Labour/Industrial law. It is not the case that the Petitioners would not
be entitled to the lawful remedy in that regard. As regards the claim
for this additional compensation, on the Petitioners' own showing if
dgm 4 7-wp-6666-12.sxw
the same was paid from the funds of Respondent No.5, then surely it
is not a case for us to inquire into this factual controversy in exercise
of our jurisdiction under Article 226 of the Constitution of India.
These are issues of facts which are required to be gone into under the
appropriate laws before the appropriate judicial forum. We also
cannot pass any orders on the disputed issues on the basis of news
paper cuttings. If the Petitioners have any legal rights, under any law,
the Petitioners ought to have espoused them as permissible in law. We
also cannot issue directions to the State Government to consider the
representation of the Petitioner which is dated 23.12.2008 in view of
the position in law as laid down by the Supreme Court in the case of
C. Jacob vs. Directorate of Geology and Mining and anr 1 wherein
detailed guidelines are laid down to be considered by the Courts in
matter of directions to be issued to the authorities to consider a
representation. Their Lordships in para 10 of the decision have held
as follows :-
"10 We are constrained to refer to the several facets
of the issue only to emphasize the need for
circumspection and care in issuing directions for
consideration. If the representation on the face of it is
stale or does not contain particulars to show that it is
regarding a live claim, courts should desist from
1 AIR 2009 SC 264.
dgm 5 7-wp-6666-12.sxw
directing consideration of such claims."
6 In view of above deliberation, we find no merit in the
present writ petition. The same is accordingly rejected. No costs.
7 In view of rejection of writ petition, Civil Application (ST)
No.35018/2013 would not survive and is accordingly rejected.
(G. S. KULKARNI, J.)
ig (ANOOP V. MOHTA, J.)
