The State Of Maharashtra And ... vs Hansraj Uikha Patil
2016 Latest Caselaw 6972 Bom

                                                                       WP/3023/1997
                                             1

                    IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE OF BOMBAY
                               BENCH AT AURANGABAD




                                                                               
                              WRIT PETITION NO. 3023 OF 1997




                                                       
     1. The State of Maharashtra

     2. The Sub-divisional Officer,
     Girna Canal, Modernisation




                                                      
     Division No.2, Jalgaon,
     Near Collector Office, Jalgaon.                     ..Petitioners

     Versus




                                           
     Hansraj Ukha Patil
     R/o Anchalgaon, Post. Amadade,
                             
     Tq. Bhadgaon, Dist. Jalgaon.                        ..Respondent

                                            ...
                           AGP for Petitioners : Shri S.N.Kendre
                            
                                            ...
                            CORAM : RAVINDRA V. GHUGE, J.

Dated: December 06, 2016 ...

ORAL JUDGMENT:-

1. The petitioner is aggrieved by the judgment dated 18.3.1997

delivered by the Labour Court, Jalgaon by which application (IDA)

No.181 of 1988 has been partly allowed and the respondent is

granted Rs. 4602/- as over time wages along with interest @ 9% per

annum.

2. This Court by order dated 15.10.1999 admitted the petition,

vacated the ad-interim relief and clarified that the amount which the

petitioner shall pay to the respondent in pursuance to the impugned

order, shall be subject to the result in this petition.

WP/3023/1997

3. None appeared for the respondent on 1.12.2016 and even

today.

4. The learned AGP has strenuously criticized the impugned

judgment. He has drawn my attention to the nine grounds raised by

him in the memo of the petition.

5.

I have considered the submissions of the learned AGP and have

gone through the record available.

6. The respondent led evidence through himself and another co-

worker to indicate that he was working as a Watchman on the

Wireless Center of the petitioners. There were two operators along

with him, who were deployed at the center. These two technicians

used to work during their day time working hours and after their duty

was over, used to leave the premises. The respondent was the only

watchman, who used to guard the premises even during the night.

7. The petitioners could not prove before the Labour Court that a

reliever or a second watchman was appointed or deployed at the

wireless center so as to relieve the respondent. It was on the basis

of oral and documentary evidence that the Labour Court concluded

that the respondent was entitled for an amount of Rs.4602/- along

WP/3023/1997

with interest, as unpaid overtime wages.

8. Considering the above, I do not find that the impugned

judgment could be termed as being perverse or erroneous. This

petition being devoid of merits is, therefore, dismissed. Rule is

discharged.

9. In the event, the petitioners have not complied with the

directions of the Labour Court pursuant to the order of this Court

dated 15.10.1999, the petitioners would be obliged to pay the said

amount along with interest till actually paid, as is granted by the

Labour Court, to the respondent within a period of twelve weeks

from today.

( RAVINDRA V. GHUGE, J. )

...

akl/d