Bombay High Court
State Of Mah vs Maruti N Kharmare on 1 December, 2016
Bench: R.V. Ghuge
WP/3036/1997
1
IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE OF BOMBAY
BENCH AT AURANGABAD
WRIT PETITION NO. 3036 OF 1997
1.The State of Maharashtra
2. Executive Engineer,
Public Works Division,
Ahmednagar. ..Petitioners
Versus
Maruti N. Kharmare
r/o at Jambhali, Post. Mohoj,
Tq. Pathardi, Dist. Ahmednagar.
ig ..Respondent
...
AGP for Petitioner : Shri N.T.Bhagat
Advocate for Respondent : Shri K.D.Bade Patil
...
CORAM : RAVINDRA V. GHUGE, J.
Dated: December 1, 2016
...
ORAL JUDGMENT:-
1. The petitioner is aggrieved by the judgment and award dated
20.9.1996, by which, Reference (IDA) No.19 of 1988 has been partly
allowed and the respondent has been granted reinstatement with
continuity without backwages.
2. While admitting this petition on 7.8.1997, this Court has
stayed the award.
3. I have considered the submissions of the learned AGP on behalf
WP/3036/1997
of the petitioner and Shri Bade Patil, learned Advocate on behalf of
the respondent / employee.
4. The respondent had approached the Labour Court alleging
termination from 1.9.1986. He claimed that he was working from
1.3.1983 to 1.9.1986. Besides the oral statement of the respondent,
there is no evidence to indicate that he had worked continuously for
240 days in each of the three calendar months.
5.
The petitioner produced a chart Exhibit C/11 stating therein
that the respondent had worked for 62 days during the period of
three years. The Labour Court has disbelieved the said chart. I do
not find any conclusion in the impugned award that the respondent
has completed 240 days in continuous service in each calendar year.
However, the reference has been allowed because some daily wagers
were inducted after the respondent was disengaged.
6. The fact remains that the respondent can, at the most be said
to have worked intermittently for three years and is out of
employment for more than 30 years.
7. The Honourable Apex Court in similar facts and circumstances
has concluded in the following cases that reinstatement would not be
an appropriate relief in matters where the employee has put in a
WP/3036/1997
short spell in employment and is out of employment for a long
duration:-
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] and
4. Jagbir Singh Vs. Haryana State Agriculture Marketing Board
[(2009) 15 SCC 327].
8. Considering the above and the fact that the respondent is out
of employment, I deem it appropriate to follow the view taken by the
Honourable Apex Court in the above mentioned four judgments.
9. This petition is, therefore, partly allowed. The impugned
judgment and order is modified. In lieu of reinstatement and
continuity of service, the petitioner shall pay an amount of
Rs.90,000/- as quantified compensation to the respondent within a
period of twelve weeks from today, failing which an interest at the
rate of 5% per annum on the said amount shall be payable from the
date of the award. The said interest shall be paid from the salary of
the Executive Engineer, PWD, Ahmednagar and the same shall not be
WP/3036/1997
paid through the State exchequer.
10. Rule is made partly absolute in the above terms.
( RAVINDRA V. GHUGE, J. )
...
akl/d
