Bombay High Court
Zilla Parishad Ahemadnagar vs Dinkar Sakharam Auti on 1 December, 2016
Bench: R.V. Ghuge
WP/2082/1997
1
IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE OF BOMBAY
BENCH AT AURANGABAD
WRIT PETITION NO. 2082 OF 1997
Zilla Parishad, Ahmednagar
through its Chief Executive Officer. ..Petitioner
Versus
Shri Dinkar Sakharam Auti,
R/o Wadegavan, Tq. Parner,
District Ahmednagar. ..Respondent
...
Advocate for Petitioner : Shri Shelke S.T.
Advocate for Respondent : Shri Barde P.V.
...
CORAM : RAVINDRA V. GHUGE, J.
Dated: December 01, 2016
...
ORAL JUDGMENT:-
1. The petitioner is aggrieved by the judgment and award dated
25.7.1996 by which, Reference (IDA) No.39 of 1991 filed by the
respondent / employee was allowed and he was granted
reinstatement with continuity and 50% backwages.
2. While admitting this petition on 19.6.1997, the impugned
award was stayed.
3. Shri Shelke, learned Advocate for the petitioner has
strenuously criticized the impugned award. He submits that the
respondent had never worked continuously for 240 days in any
WP/2082/1997
calendar year. He was a daily wager. The material available before
the Labour Court would indicate that he had not continuously worked
for 240 days. He further submits that having worked intermittently
over a period of about 2 years and 8 months, would not entitle the
respondent to reinstatement with continuity and 50% backwages as is
granted by the Labour Court. He, therefore, submits that the
impugned award deserves to be quashed and set aside.
4.
Shri Barde, learned Advocate appearing on behalf of the
respondent / employee has supported the impugned award. He
submits that there was sufficient evidence before the Labour Court
to arrive at a finding that the respondent had worked for more than
240 days in continuous employment in each calendar year. He,
however, submits that from 1988 onwards, the respondent is not in
employment for the past about 28 years.
5. He, relies upon the judgment of the Honourable Apex Court in
the matter of Bhavnagar Municipal Corporation Vs. Jadeja Govubha
Chhanubha [AIR 2015 SC 609], to contend that an employee who had
worked for 18 months has been granted Rs.2,50,000/- as
compensation.
6. I had considered the submissions of the learned Advocates and
have perused the record available.
WP/2082/1997
7. It is apparent from the record that a chart of number of days
worked was produced by the petitioner / management vide Exhibit C-
15. In the whole year of 1986, the respondent had worked for 279
days. In 1987, he had worked for 262 days and from 1.1.1988 till
30.9.1988, he had put in 223 days. As such, the legal requirement of
Section 25B of the Industrial Disputes Act that an employee must
complete 240 days in continuous employment in one calendar year
preceding the date of reference, which is the date of termination,
was fulfilled by the respondent. Hence, the conclusions arrived at by
the Labour Court to this extent cannot be faulted as reliance was
placed upon the chart Exhibit C-15, produced by the petitioner /
establishment.
8. It cannot be ignored that the respondent had worked over a
period of 2 years and 8 months and is out of employment for about 28
years. The Honourable Apex Court, in the following four judgments,
has concluded that compensation at the rate of Rs.30,000/- per year
of service put in by an employee would be an appropriate relief,
when a short tenure of employment is followed by a long duration of
unemployment:-
1. Assistant Engineer, Rajasthan State Agriculture Marketing
Board, Sub-Division, Kota Vs. Mohanlal [2013 LLR 1009],
WP/2082/1997
2. Assistant Engineer, Rajasthan Development Corporation
and another Vs. Gitam Singh [(2013) 5 SCC 136],
3. BSNL Vs. Man Singh [(2012) 1 SCC 558] and
4. Jagbir Singh Vs. Haryana State Agriculture Marketing Board
[(2009) 15 SCC 327].
9. This Court has consistently followed the ratio laid down by the
Honourable Supreme Court in the afore mentioned four cases.
10. In the light of the above, this petition is partly allowed. The
impugned award is modified with the direction to the petitioner to
pay an amount of Rs.90,000/- to the respondent within a period of
three months from today, failing which interest at the rate of 5% per
cent per annum would be liable to be paid on the said amount from
the date of the award of the Labour Court. The said interest shall,
therefore, be paid from the salary of the Chief Executive Officer of
the petitioner and not from the coffers of the Zilla Parishad or the
State exchequer.
11. Rule is made partly absolute in the above terms.
( RAVINDRA V. GHUGE, J. )
...
akl/d
