Bombay High Court
Marathwada Pathbandhare And ... vs The State Of Maharashtra And ... on 2 December, 2016
Bench: R.V. Ghuge
1
IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE OF BOMBAY
BENCH AT AURANGABAD
WRIT PETITION NO.6256 OF 2016
Marathwada Pathbandhare and
Yantriki Kamgar Sanghatana Reg.No.1120
Through Sarchitnis Jagannath S/o Ramrao Potdar,
Age-68 years, Occu-Social Service,
R/o Godawari Niwas, In front of Sootmil,
Latur, Dist.Latur -- PETITIONER
VERSUS
1. The State of Maharashtra
(Through Chief Secretary, Irrigation
Department, Mantralaya, Mumbai-32)
2. The Chief Engineer (P),
Patbandhare Vibhag,
Sinchan Bhawan, Aurangabad,
3. The Executive Engineer,
Medium Project Division,
Patbandhare Wasahat,
Old Ausa Road, Latur, Dist.Latur,
4. The Executive Engineer,
Minod Irrigation Division,
Laghu Patbandhare Vibhag,
Old Ausa Road, Latur -- RESPONDENTS
Mr.A.M.Nagarkar h/f Mr.K.M.Nagarkar, Advocate for the petitioner.
Mr.N.T.Bhagat, AGP for respondent Nos. 1 to 4.
( CORAM : RAVINDRA V. GHUGE, J.)
DATE : 02/12/2016
ORAL JUDGMENT :
1. Rule. Rule made returnable forthwith and heard finally by the
khs/DEC.2016/6256-d
consent of the parties.
2. The petitioner/Union claims to be aggrieved by the judgment
dated 31/12/2015 delivered by the Labour Court vide which Appl.
(IDA) No.20/2001 has been dismissed for being untenable in law.
3. I have heard the strenuous submissions of Mr.Nagarkar,
learned Advocate on behalf of the petitioner and the learned AGP on
behalf of the respondents.
4. There is no dispute that the petitioner is not a recognized
Union under the MRTU and PULP Act, 1971 in relation to
respondent No.3 and 4/Authorities. It is equally undisputed and as
has been admitted by the petitioner's witness that purported 1600
members working in these Departments have not given any
authorization to the petitioner/Union to lodge a claim u/s 33(C)(2),
as has been specifically provided for under the said section.
5. The Labour Court has dismissed the application for the reason
that the applicant/Union was not authorized to represent 1600
workmen, in as much as, the issue before the Labour Court was as to
whether the GR dated 20/11/1999 would be applicable to the said
khs/DEC.2016/6256-d
employees thereby entitling them to claim an amount of
Rs.1,01,94,398/- as earthquake allowance from the petitioner/
Establishment.
6. It is trite law that disputed questions as to whether the
employees are entitled or not cannot be gone into u/s 33(C)(2). So
also, without placing any evidence on record indicating that 600
workmen had empowered the petitioner to stake a claim for an
amount of almost Rs.1,02,00,000/-, would render the claim
untenable. The Labour Court, in my view, has rightly dismissed the
application.
7. This petition being devoid of merit, is therefore, dismissed. Rule
is discharged.
8. Learned Advocate for the petitioner submits that the
respondents/Authorities are presently dealing with a proposal to
grant earthquake allowance to the employees working in the
Irrigation Department. The said proposal is pending vide letter dated
04/05/2001. It is submitted that the Government may be directed to
decide the said proposal.
khs/DEC.2016/6256-d
9. As such, in the event any such proposal is pending pursuant to
the letter dated 04/05/2001, the respondents/authorities shall
proceed to decide the said proposal strictly in accordance with its
policies and the law applicable and preferably within a period of 6
months from today, if not already decided.
( RAVINDRA V. GHUGE, J.)
khs/DEC.2016/6256-d
