Bombay High Court
State Of Maharashtra & Others vs Bapu Kani Khedkar on 1 December, 2016
Bench: R.V. Ghuge
WP/2421/1997
1
IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE OF BOMBAY
BENCH AT AURANGABAD
WRIT PETITION NO. 2421 OF 1997
1. State of Maharashtra
2. The Executive Engineer,
B & C Division, Ahmednagar. ..Petitioners
Versus
Bapu Kani Khedkar,
at post Belwandi,
Tq. Shrigonda,
District Ahmednagar. ig ..Respondent
...
AGP for Petitioners : Shri Bhagat N.T.
Advocate for Respondent : Shri Shelke S.K.
...
CORAM : RAVINDRA V. GHUGE, J.
Dated: December 1, 2016
...
ORAL JUDGMENT:-
1. The petitioners are aggrieved by the judgment and order
dated 12.8.1976, by which, Reference (IDA) No.50 of 1993 has been
allowed and the respondent has been granted reinstatement with full
backwages and continuity of service.
2. While admitting this petition on 23.2.1998, this Court
permitted the respondent to file an application under Section 17B of
the Industrial Disputes Act for seeking payment of last drawn wages
during the pendency of the Writ Petition. By order dated 9.7.1998 on
WP/2421/1997
Civil Application No.3410 of 1998, this Court allowed the application
and directed payment of last drawn wages from 1.8.1998, if the
petitioner is unable to reinstate the respondent / employee.
3. I have considered the submissions of the learned Advocates for
the respective sides and have gone through the record available.
4. It is not disputed that the petitioner did not appear in the
Labour Court and as a consequence of which, the Reference was
granted ex-parte after the Labour Court relied purely on the affidavit
in lieu of evidence tendered by the respondent and by concluding
that, "I have no reason to dis-believe the contents of affidavit
Exhibit U/5 of the second party."
5. Based on this conclusion, the impugned award has been
delivered. It is equally undisputed that besides the contention in the
statement of claim and the affidavit Exhibit U/5, there was no
evidence before the Labour Court to independently arrive at a
conclusion that the purported termination of the respondent amounts
to illegal retrenchment. The impugned award, therefore, is
unsustainable in law.
6. In the above circumstances, normally the Reference matter
would have been remitted to the Labour Court for fresh adjudication
WP/2421/1997
by imposing costs upon the petitioners for having failed to participate
in the proceedings. However, Shri Shelke, learned Advocate for the
respondent points out that the respondent was 55 years' old when he
preferred the Civil Application in 1998 seeking Section 17B benefits.
The retirement age of a daily wager is 60 years.
7. In the peculiar facts as recorded above, this petition is
allowed. The impugned award is quashed and set aside.
8.
Considering the fact that this situation has arisen on account
of the failure of the petitioners in rendering assistance to the Labour
Court, I am quantifying costs of Rs.10,000/-, which the petitioners
shall pay to the respondent within a period of eight weeks from
today.
9. Since this Court has granted the benefits of Section 17B to the
respondent w.e.f. 1.8.1998, the said benefit till the age of
superannuation of the respondent shall be sufficient compensation to
the respondent. For the sake of clarity, in the event the said amount
has not been paid, the petitioners shall calculate the unpaid wages
under Sections 17B and the same shall be paid within 12 weeks from
today to the respondent, failing which the said amount shall carry
interest at the rate of 5 per cent per annum from the date of the
award.
WP/2421/1997
10. Rule is made absolute accordingly.
( RAVINDRA V. GHUGE, J. )
...
akl/d
