The State Of Maharashtra And Ors vs Sheikh Mukhtar Mohiyoddin And Ors
2016 Latest Caselaw 6947 Bom

                                                                      WP/2694/1997
                                            1

                    IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE OF BOMBAY
                               BENCH AT AURANGABAD




                                                                              
                              WRIT PETITION NO. 2694 OF 1997




                                                      
     The State of Maharashtra
     Through -

     1. Sub-Divisional Engineer,




                                                     
     Minor Irrigation (EGS) No.2,
     Sub-Division Bhokar,
     District Nanded.

     2. Executive Engineer,




                                          
     Nanded No.1 Division,
     Nanded.                 
     3. Superintending Engineer,
     Minor Irrigation Circle Office,
     Aurangabad.                                       ..Petitioners
                            
     Versus

     1. Shaikh Mukhtar s/o Mohiyoddin,
      

     Age 24 years, Occupation Nil,
     r/o Behind Nyaya Mandir, Bhokar,
     District Nanded.
   



     2. Presiding Officer and Judge,
     Labour Court, Nanded.                            ..Respondents
                                         ...





                      AGP for Petitioners : Shri Sonpawale S.P.
                  Advocate for Respondent 1 : Shri Chincholkar G.N.
                               Respondent 2 : Deleted.
                                         ...
                          CORAM : RAVINDRA V. GHUGE, J.

Dated: December 06, 2016

...

ORAL JUDGMENT :-

1. Respondent No.2 is the Labour Court and hence deleted from

this proceeding.

WP/2694/1997

2. The petition is aggrieved by the judgment of the Labour Court

dated 19.2.1992. Complaint (ULP) No 290 of 1990 has been allowed

and the respondent is granted reinstatement with continuity and full

backwages.

3. This petition was admitted on 24.7.1997 and interim relief in

terms of prayer clause (B) was granted, thereby, staying the

impugned judgment.

4.

Normally, a Writ Petition against the judgment of the Labour

Court under the Maharashtra Recognition of Trade Unions and

Prevention of Unfair Labour Practices Act, 1971 ("the said Act ")

cannot be entertained as a statutory remedy of preferring a Revision

Petition under Section 44 is available. This Court has held that a

Writ Petition without availing the remedy of filing a Revision is

untenable in law (Engineering Employees Union Vs. Devidayal Rolling

& Refinery Pvt. Ltd. [1986 (52) FLR 40 = 1986 Mh.L.J. 331]).

However, since this matter has been admitted almost 20 years ago, I

am deciding this matter on its merits.

5. I have heard the submissions of the learned Advocates for the

respective sides and have gone through the petition paper book with

their assistance

WP/2694/1997

6. There is no dispute that though the petitioner had appeared

before the Labour Court in ULP complaint, neither a written

statement was filed, nor did the petitioner lead evidence. The

Labour Court in these circumstances relied upon the affidavit Exhibit

U-14 and allowed the complaint on the ground that the complaint is

unchallenged. It is settled law that a complaint or a suit cannot be

allowed by relying on an affidavit only on the ground that the

respondent / defendant has not participated in the proceeding. The

impugned judgment in this case, therefore, deserves to be set aside.

7. However, it cannot be ignored that by remanding the

complaint to the Labour Court, the respondent / employee would

have to suffer rigours of litigation as the clock will have to be

reversed by 27 years, considering the fact that the complaint was

filed on 17.11.1989. In my view, by awarding costs to the respondent,

his rigours of litigation would be reduced. Learned AGP has

strenuously submitted that since the petitioners are the State

instrumentalities, minimum costs be imposed. Learned Advocate for

the respondent has prayed for the dismissal of the Writ Petition.

8. For the above reasons and considering the fact that the

impugned judgment was stayed from 24.7.1997, this petition is partly

allowed. The impugned judgment dated 19.2.1992 is quashed and

set aside and Complaint (ULP) No.290 of 1990 is remitted to the

WP/2694/1997

Labour Court, Aurangabad on the following conditions:-

(A) The litigating sides shall appear before the Labour Court on 6.1.2016.

(B) The petitioners shall deposit an amount of Rs.25,000/-

before the Labour Court on the date of appearance.

(C) The respondent / employee shall be at liberty to

withdraw the said amount without conditions, by making an

application supported by his recent photograph and identity proof in the nature of the Election Commission's Voter Id card.

(D) The petitioners shall file their written statement, along with documents, if any, on/or before 13.1.2017 before the Labour Court.

(E) The Labour Court shall then frame issues and decide the Complaint afresh by considering the rival contentions of the parties.

(F) The Labour Court shall decide the complaint as expeditiously as possible and preferably on/or before the 31 st day of August 2017.

(G) Considering that the complaint is of the year 1989, the litigating sides shall refrain from seeking adjournments on unreasonable and trivial grounds.

(H) It needs mention that if the petitioners fail to deposit

WP/2694/1997

the costs as directed, then the earlier judgment dated

19.2.1992 shall come into force and the Labour Court shall

accordingly close the said proceedings.

9. Rule is made partly absolute in the above costs.

( RAVINDRA V. GHUGE, J. ) ...

akl/d