Bombay High Court
M/S Shirish Polychem Ltd Through ... vs Machindra Kisanrao Kanhe And ... on 13 December, 2016
Bench: R.V. Ghuge
1
IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE OF BOMBAY
BENCH AT AURANGABAD
WRIT PETITION NO.12144 OF 2016
M/s Shirish Polychem (P) Ltd.,
Through its Director
Mr.Shirish S/o Raghunath Kandi,
Plot No.K-251, MIDC,
Waluj,
Aurangabad - 431 136 - PETITIONER
VERSUS
1.
Machindra s/o Kisanrao Kanhe,
Age-40 years, Occu-Nil,
R/o at Ganeshwadi, Tq.Gangapur,
Aurangabad,
2. Janardhan S/o Annasaheb Gore,
Age-47 years, Occu-Nil,
R/o Waluj, Tq.Gangapur,
Dist.Aurangabad,
3. Parasram s/o Bhausaheb Pawar,
Age-42 years, Occu-Nil,
R/o At Post Wahegaon, Tq.Paithan,
Dist.Aurangabad,
4. Uttareshwar s/o Uddavrao Pawar,
Age-30 years, Occu-Nil,
R/o.Bhokaramba, Tq.Renapur,
Dist.Latur,
5. Ramnath s/o Pandharinath Bobade,
Age-44 years, Occu-Nil,
R/o At Post : Wahegaon, Tq.Paithan,
Dist.Aurangabad,
6. Tulshidas s/o Ashok Thore (died),
Through his LR : Vandana Tulshidas Thore,
R/o : At Kekat-Jalgaon, P.O.Dongaon,
Tq.Paithan, Dist.Aurangabad,
khs/DEC.2016/12144-d
::: Uploaded on - 16/12/2016 ::: Downloaded on - 17/12/2016 00:48:02 :::
2
7. Sudhakar s/o Uttamrao Vane,
Age-39 years, Occu-Nil,
R/o at Kekat-Jalgaon, P.O.Dongaon,
Tq.Paithan, Dist.Aurangabad,
8. Ravi s/o Durgaprasad Shriwas,
Age-28 years, Occu-Nil,
R/o At P.O.Chandrapur, Balaji Nagar,
Dist.Chandrapur (Vidharba),
9. Sanjay s/o Raghunath Bobade,
Age-41 years, Occu-Nil,
R/o At P.O.Wahegaon, Tq.Paithan,
Dist.Aurangabad - RESPONDENTS
Mr.Y.I.Thole, Advocate for the petitioner.
Mr.G.C.Navandar, Advocate for respondent No.1.
Mr.S.N.Kendre, AGP for the respondent/State.
( CORAM : RAVINDRA V. GHUGE, J.)
DATE : 13/12/2016
ORAL JUDGMENT :
1. Rule. Rule made returnable forthwith and heard finally by the
consent of the parties.
2. The petitioner is aggrieved by the order of the Industrial Court
dated 23/09/2016 by which the application for interim relief Exhibit
C-2 in Revision (ULP) NO.56/2015 has been partly allowed.
Grievance is that the direction to deposit back wages of the
respondents for the period of termination 11/08/2009 till
khs/DEC.2016/12144-d
28/07/2015 as directed by the Industrial Court, has caused grave
prejudice to the petitioner.
3. I have heard the submissions of Mr.Thole, learned Advocate for
the petitioner/Management and Mr.Navandar, learned Advocate on
behalf of the respondents/employees.
4.
Notwithstanding the strenuous submissions of the petitioner, it
cannot be lost sight of that after the Labour Court granted
reinstatement with continuity and back wages from 11/08/2009. On
filing of Revision (ULP) No.56/2015, though the Industrial Court
found it proper to stay the order of reinstatement, it has directed the
petitioner to deposit the back wages for the abovesaid period.
5. It is apparent that the revision proceedings are pending and by
an interlocutory order, the Industrial Court has tried to balance the
equities by staying the judgment of the Labour Court on the
condition that the back wages are deposited.
6. The petitioner submits that if the back wages for a period of
about 6 years are to be deposited before the Industrial Court, the
petitioner would be financially weakened and may have to close down
khs/DEC.2016/12144-d
its factory on account of financial problems. It is further submitted
that if a small amount of back wages was directed to be deposited,
the petitioner would have complied with the directions. However, a
huge amount cannot be deposited by the petitioner which is a tiny
industry.
7. It is trite law that interlocutory orders in the nature of granting
interim relief, have to be equitable orders and the Court passing such
orders, has to ensure that equities are balanced. It is also trite law
that interlocutory orders are not to be interfered with lightly unless
they are perverse, erroneous and would cause grave injustice.
8. I find that the respondents herein are without employment
from 11/08/2009. After a prolonged legal battle, they succeeded in
their complaint when the Labour Court granted them the reliefs by
judgment dated 17/02/2015. Their order of reinstatement has been
stayed by the Industrial Court and the amount directed to be
deposited is further directed to be invested in a fixed deposit in a
Nationalized Bank, by the Industrial Court. In effect, the
respondents would not be getting reinstatement as well as some
succor though the amount is directed to be deposited. However, by
passing the impugned order, the Industrial Court has ensured that
khs/DEC.2016/12144-d
the portion of the back wages granted by the Labour Court would be
secured while staying the order of reinstatement.
9. In the light of the above, I do not find that the impugned order
could be termed as being perverse or erroneous or causing gross
injustice to the petitioner. The Industrial Court has balanced the
equities and such an interlocutory order, therefore, does not call for
interference.
10. This petition, being devoid of merit, is therefore dismissed.
Rule is discharged.
11. At the request of the petitioner and by consent of the learned
Advocate for the respondent, the time to deposit the money as
directed by the Industrial Court, is extended by 6 weeks, failing
which the respondents would be at liberty to seek execution of the
judgment of the Labour Court.
( RAVINDRA V. GHUGE, J.)
khs/DEC.2016/12144-d
