Bombay High Court
The Executive Engineer,Public ... vs Shri Balkrishna Dagadu Rashinkar on 1 December, 2016
Bench: R.V. Ghuge
1
IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE OF BOMBAY
BENCH AT AURANGABAD
WRIT PETITION NO.4480 OF 1995
Executive Engineer,
Public Works, Sangamner,
Tq.Sangamner, Dist.Ahmednagar -- PETITIONER
VERSUS
Shri Balkrishna s/o Dagadu Rashinkar,
At Dhangarwadi, Post : Wakdi,
Tq.Shrirampur, Dist.Ahmednagar.
ig -- RESPONDENT
Mr.S.P.Sonpawale, Advocate for the petitioner.
Mr.N.C.Garud, Advocate for the respondent.
( CORAM : RAVINDRA V. GHUGE, J.)
DATE : 01/12/2016
ORAL JUDGMENT :
1. The petitioner is aggrieved by the judgment and award dated
04/05/1995 by which the Labour Court has allowed Ref.(IDA)
No.30/1990 and granted reinstatement with continuity and full back
wages from 06/07/1986.
2. This Court, by its order dated 18/09/1995 admitted the
petition and stayed the impugned award.
khs/DEC.2016/4480-d
3. I have considered the submissions of the learned AGP on behalf
of the petitioner and Mr.Garud, learned Advocate on behalf of the
respondent. With their assistance, I have gone through the record
available.
4. After considering the submissions of the learned Advocates and
upon perusing the record, I am astonished by the impugned award
granting reinstatement to the respondent with continuity and full
back wages from 06/07/1986 when he had worked for only 32 days
in between 21/08/1979 and 17/10/1979.
5. The respondent had approached the Labour Court with a claim
that he had worked from 1979 till 06/07/1986, continuously, without
a break and had completed 240 days in employment. The record
reveals that though the petitioner took a stand that the respondent
has abandoned service, his name does not appear in any muster roll-
cum-pay sheet or payment vouchers for 1980 till 1986.
6. Record reveals that the respondent had conducted an
inspection of the attendance registers, muster roll-cum-pay sheet and
payment vouchers from August 1979 till June 1986. Based on his
inspection, the respondent/employee had filed two inspection reports
khs/DEC.2016/4480-d
at Exhibit U-6 and Exhibit U-7 before the Labour Court clearing
stating that besides working for 32 days from August 1979 to October
1979, his name does not appear in any attendance sheet or muster
roll-cum-pay sheet. It is, however, stated that two daily wagers were
in employment who were given work on daily wages after 1986.
7. In the above fact situation, I am surprised that the Labour
Court has granted reinstatement in service with continuity and full
back wages from 06/07/1986 notwithstanding the fact that the
respondent/employee had failed to establish violation of Section 25-F
in the backdrop of Section 25-B of the I.D.Act, 1947. In my view,
Section 25-G and 25-H would have no application in the case of a
daily wager who had worked for 32 days from August to October 1979
and had raised a claim in 1990 as if he had a continued right to
employment and on the presumption that he should have been
invited for work before engaging any daily wager in the following 11
years.
8. Learned Advocate for the respondent has placed reliance upon
the oral judgment of this Court dated 20/10/2016 in WP
No.690/1997 claiming that the employee in the said case belongs to
the same village of the respondent/employee and that he had also
khs/DEC.2016/4480-d
worked for short durations in 3 years and hence this Court had
granted him compensation for 3 years. I do not find that the said
judgment would be applicable to the case of this respondent for the
reason that the respondent herein has worked for 32 days in 3
months whereas in the said referred case, he had worked in 3
different years before he alleged retrenchment.
9.
The Hon'ble Apex Court in the judgments delivered in the case
Board,
of Assistant Engineer, Rajasthan State Agriculture Marketing
Sub Division, Kota Vs. Mohanlal, 2013 LLR 1009, Assistant Engineer,
Rajasthan Development Corporation and
another
Vs. Gitam Singh,
(2013) 5 SCC 136, BSNL Vs. Man Singh, (2012) 1 SCC 558, Jagbir
Singh Vs. Haryana State Agriculture Marketing Board, (2009) 15 SCC
327 has held that an amount of compensation of Rs.30,000/- be
granted to the employee who has put in 1 year in service. In the
instant case, the record establishes that the respondent herein has
worked for 3 months. Yet, since he is litigating in this Court, I am
presuming that he has worked for 6 months and I am granting him
compensation of 15,000/-
10. In the light of the above, this petition is allowed. The impugned
award dated 04/05/1995 is quashed and set aside and Ref.(IDA)
khs/DEC.2016/4480-d
No.30/1990 stands rejected. The petitioner shall pay an amount of
Rs.15,000/- to the respondent within a period of 12 (twelve) weeks
from today.
11. Rule is made absolute in the above terms.
ig ( RAVINDRA V. GHUGE, J.)
khs/DEC.2016/4480-d
