Bombay High Court
Zilla Parishad Beed vs The State Of Mah. & Others on 2 December, 2016
Bench: R.V. Ghuge
1
IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE OF BOMBAY
BENCH AT AURANGABAD
WRIT PETITION NO.2637 OF 1997
Zilla Parishad, Beed,
Through its
Chief Executive Officer -- PETITIONER
VERSUS
1. The State of Maharashtra
Copy to be served on the
Government Pleader,
High Court of Judicature
of Bombay, Bench at Aurangabad,
2. Mohan s/o Ganpat Jawale,
claimed to be Sweeper
C/o Trade Union Centre,
Bashirganj, Beed,
Dist. Beed -- RESPONDENTS
Mr.H.K.Munde, Advocate for the petitioner.
Mrs.Sangmitra Wadmare, Advocate for respondent No.2.
Petition is dismissed against respondent No.1.
( CORAM : RAVINDRA V. GHUGE, J.)
DATE : 02/12/2016
ORAL JUDGMENT :
1. The petitioner is aggrieved by the ex-parte award dated
16/05/1996 by which the Labour Court has allowed Ref.(IDA)
No.54/1988 and granted reinstatement with continuity and full back
wages to the respondent from 01/09/1986.
khs/DEC.2016/2637-d
2. This Court has admitted this petition on 04/12/1997 and
stayed the impugned award.
3. This matter was adjourned on 01/12/2016 only to enable the
litigating sides to work out this matter. Even today, none appears for
the respondent/employee.
4.
I have considered the submissions of the learned Advocate for
the petitioner.
5. The respondent had approached the Labour Court claiming
that he had joined the temporary employment of the petitioner on
08/06/1984 and was orally terminated on 01/09/1986. The
impugned award indicates that the Labour Court has accepted the
contentions of the respondent in a single sentence only because the
petitioner did not appear and did not contest the matter. The Labour
Court, therefore, concluded that, "hence, I do not have hesitation to
pass award in favour of the second party workman as per his
statement of claim in toto."
6. It is settled law that merely because a proceeding is being
conducted ex-parte, the contention of the claimant/plaintiff cannot
khs/DEC.2016/2637-d
be accepted without oral and documentary evidence and without
assigning reasons. The impugned award, therefore, deserves to be
quashed and set aside.
7. It is pointed out from the pleadings in the memo of the petition
in paragraph No.3 as well as on the basis of the communication
issued by the Divisional Controller of M.S.R.T.C. addressed to the
C.E.O. of the petitioner dated 03/10/1996 that the respondent joined
the M.S.R.T.C. as a driver on 04/10/1989. He has continued in
service thereafter.
8. It is, therefore, apparent that this aspect was suppressed by
the respondent from the Labour Court despite the fact that the
impugned award was delivered on 16/05/1996 when the respondent
was in the employment of the M.S.R.T.C. This aspect was not
pointed out by the petitioner before the Labour Court since it did not
appear in the matter. However, that would not absolve the
respondent from his duty in stating the facts and refraining from
suppressing a material information. The Hon'ble Apex Court, in
these circumstances, has held in the matter of Kishore Samrite Vs.
State of U.P. [(2013) 2 SCC 398] and in the matter of Bhaskar
Laxman Jadhav and others Vs.Karamveer Kakasaheb Wagh
khs/DEC.2016/2637-d
Education Society and others, AIR 2013 SC 523 that an employee
should be deprived of relief for suppression of facts.
9. In the light of the above, this petition is allowed. The impugned
award is quashed and set aside and Ref.(IDA) No.54/1988 stands
rejected. Rule is made absolute in the above terms.
ig ( RAVINDRA V. GHUGE, J.)
khs/DEC.2016/2637-d
