Bombay High Court
M/S Kinetic Engineering Ltd vs Shri Pramod G.Mohite And Anr on 8 December, 2016
Bench: R.V. Ghuge
*1* 912.wp.2162.97
IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY
BENCH AT AURANGABAD
WRIT PETITION NO. 2162 OF 1997
M/s Kinetic Engineering Limited,
Nagar Dhond Road, Ahmednagar,
District Ahmednagar.
...PETITIONER
-VERSUS-
1 Shri Pramod Gangadhar Mohite,
H.No.69, Bhagaskar Galli,
Bhingar, Ahmednagar.
2 The Presiding Officer,
Seth Suratsingh Bhavan,
Savedi Road, Ahmednagar.
...RESPONDENT
...
Advocate for Petitioner : Shri V.S.Bedre.
Advocate for Respondent 1 : Shri Barde Parag Vijay.
...
CORAM: RAVINDRA V. GHUGE, J.
DATE :- 08th December, 2016
Oral Judgment :
1 Respondent No.2 being the Presiding Officer, stands deleted.
2 The Petitioner is aggrieved by the judgment and award dated
26.02.1997 by which Reference (IDA) No.11/1989 filed by the
Respondent/ Employee has been allowed and he has been granted
*2* 912.wp.2162.97
reinstatement with continuity of service. The back wages have been
denied as he was gainfully employed during the pendency of the reference
proceedings.
3 I have considered the strenuous submissions of Shri Bedre
and Shri Barde, learned Advocates for the respective litigating sides.
4 There is no dispute about the following aspects:-
(a) The Respondent was appointed for two months on
22.03.1981 upto 25.05.1981 as an Assistant Fitter.
(b) He was then appointed for two months from 22.05.1981 till
27.07.1981 as an Assistant Fitter.
(c) He was then appointed as a Job Trainee from 10.09.1981 till
10.01.1983.
(d) He was disengaged on 10.01.1983.
(e) He raised an industrial dispute on 31.07.1987 and the matter
was referred to the Labour Court as Reference (IDA)
No.87/1988.
(f) Upon being transferred to Ahmednagar, it was renumbered as
Reference (IDA) No.11/1989.
(g) This Court while admitting the petition on 03.10.1997 has
stayed the impugned award as interim relief, granted in terms
*3* 912.wp.2162.97
of prayer clause (C) earlier on 30.06.1997, was directed to be
continued.
5 I have considered the submissions of the learned Advocates
and in the light of the undisputed factors as above, it needs to be noted
that the Respondent was working roughly over a period of three years
with the Petitioner. He is out of employment from 10.01.1983 in these last
33 years. His last drawn wages in 1983 were at the rate of Rs.150/- per
month. As such, even if Section 17-B benefits are to be extended to the
Respondent/ Employee from the date of admission of this petition till this
date, the said amount would be roughly Rs.35,000/-.
6 In a similar matter in between the same Petitioner Company
M/s Kinetic Engineering Co. Ltd. vs. Ajay Irrappa Basapure in Writ Petition
No.669/1997, this Court has delivered its judgment dated 13.10.2016
whereby it was observed in paragraphs 7 to 9 as under:-
"7. The Honourable Apex Court in the following four
cases has settled the law that where a small tenure of
employment has been put in by the employee, followed
by a long spell of unemployment, grant of
compensation instead of reinstatement and continuity
and backwages would be appropriate:-
1. Assistant Engineer, Rajasthan State Agriculture
Marketing Board, Sub-Division, Kota Vs. Mohanlal
[2013 LLR 1009],
2. Assistant Engineer, Rajasthan Development
*4* 912.wp.2162.97
Corporation and another Vs. Gitam Singh [(2013) 5
SCC 136],
3. BSNL Vs. Man Singh [(2012) 1 SCC 558] and
4. Jagbir Singh Vs. Haryana State Agriculture
Marketing Board [(2009) 15 SCC 327].
8. In the instant case the respondent has worked under
four appointment orders as a temporary employee
over a period of three years. The petitioner is a private
company and is not a 'State instrumentality'. Though
the impugned award has been stayed by this Court,
the respondent had not been granted Section 17B
benefits under the Industrial Disputes Act, 1947.
Considering this aspect that he would have been
entitled to Section 17B benefits and that the petitioner
is a private entity, I am enhancing the amount of
compensation from Rs.30,000/- per year to
Rs.40,000/- per year, as the view taken by the
Honourable Supreme Court was in matters of 'State
instrumentalities'.
9. In the light of the above, this petition is partly
allowed. The impugned award dated 28.6.1996 in
Reference (IDA) No.87 of 1998 is modified and the
respondent is granted compensation of an amount of
Rs.1,20,000/- as quantified compensation and he
would not be entitled for any other benefits in relation
to his employment and non-employment. The said
amount shall be paid to the respondent / employee
within a period of 12 weeks from today, failing which
the said amount would carry interest at the rate of
6% per annum from the date of the award."
7 Considering the above and by applying the same principle in
this matter, I am granting compensation of Rs.1,20,000/- to the
Respondent/ Employee in lieu of reinstatement with continuity of service
and Section 17-B benefits under the Industrial Disputes Act, 1947.
*5* 912.wp.2162.97
8 In the light of the above, this Writ Petition is partly allowed.
The impugned award of the Labour Court dated 26.02.1997 in Reference
(IDA) No.11/1989 is modified and the Respondent/ Employee is granted
compensation of Rs.1,20,000/- (Rupees One Lac Twenty Thousand)
towards lump-sum quantified compensation and he would not be entitled
to any other benefits in relation to his employment and non employment
with the Petitioner.
The said amount shall be paid by the Petitioner to the
Respondent within TWELVE WEEKS from today, failing which the said
amount shall carry interest at the rate of 6% per annum from the date of
the award till it's actual payment.
10 Rule is made partly absolute in the above terms.
kps (RAVINDRA V. GHUGE, J.)
