Bombay High Court
Chief Executive ... vs Keshav Trimbak Avhad & Another on 1 December, 2016
Bench: R.V. Ghuge
WP/2379/1997
1
IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE OF BOMBAY
BENCH AT AURANGABAD
WRIT PETITION NO. 2379 OF 1997
Chief Executive Officer,
Zilla Parishad, Ahmednagar. ..Petitioner
Versus
1.Keshav Trimbak Avhad
R/o Jambhali, Post Mauj Devdhe,
Tq. Pathardi, Dist. Ahmednagar.
2. State of Maharashtra. ..Respondents
ig ...
Advocate for Petitioner : Shri S.T.Shelke
Advocate for Respondent 1 : Shri K.D.Bade Patil
AGP for Respondent 2 : Shri N.T.Bhagat
...
CORAM : RAVINDRA V. GHUGE, J.
Dated : December 1, 2016
...
ORAL JUDGMENT:-
1. The petitioner is aggrieved by the impugned award dated
21.6.1996, by which, though the Labour Court concluded that there is
no illegal termination, it has directed the petitioner to give work to
the respondent / employee forthwith.
2. While admitting this petition on 7.7.1997, this Court stayed
the impugned award by way of interim relief.
3. I have heard Shri Shelke, learned Advocate for the petitioner
and the learned AGP on behalf of respondent No.2. Shri Bade Patil,
WP/2379/1997
learned Advocate appearing on behalf of the respondent No.1 /
workman has strenuously defended the impugned award.
4. I find that the petitioner had placed a chart of number of days
worked before the Labour Court in the backdrop of the employee
having claimed to be in employment from 6.9.1984 till 31.1.1986.
The chart on which reliance has been placed by the litigating sides
indicates that the respondent had worked for 200 days in the 12
calendar months immediately preceding the date of reference i.e. his
date of removal, which is 1.2.1986. The chart indicates that even
weekly holidays were included in the number of days worked. As
such, the basic requirement of Section 25B of the Industrial Disputes
Act was not fulfilled by the respondent / employee.
5. The Labour Court also considered the aspect that the
respondent was working on Employment Guarantee Scheme.
However, it came to a conclusion that merely because the Tahsildar
recommended his service for EGS work and the implementing agency
was the petitioner, the respondent cannot be held to be a daily
wager on EGS.
6. I do not find this conclusion to be sustainable. If a person has
been deployed on EGS by the Tahsildar and accordingly work is made
available to him, the Labour Court cannot conclude that he was not
WP/2379/1997
working on EGS unless the said conclusion is supported with a strong
evidence. Based on the said erroneous conclusion, the Labour Court
directed the petitioner to give work to the respondent.
7. In the light of the above, the impugned award is quashed and
set aside and Reference (IDA) No.69 of 1991 is rejected. This
petition is, therefore, allowed.
8.
However, since the Labour Court granted Rs.1,000/- as costs of
litigation and since the respondent / employee is before this Court
for the last about 19 years, in the peculiar facts of this case, I am
directing the petitioner to pay an amount of Rs.5,000/-, purely on
sympathetic ground, to the respondent / employee. The said amount
shall be paid within a period of eight weeks from today.
9. Rule is made absolute in the above terms.
( RAVINDRA V. GHUGE, J. )
...
akl/d
