Bombay High Court
Shri Pundalik S/O Kanuji Deogade ... vs Maharashtra State Power ... on 11 July, 2016
Bench: Z.A. Haq
1
IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY,
NAGPUR BENCH : NAGPUR
Writ Petition No. 2261 of 2014
Petitioners : 1) Pundalik son of Kanuji Deogade, aged about
54 years, Occ: service of Urja Nagar, Ward
No. 5, Chandrapur
ig2) Anandrao Madhavji Nat, aged Major,
resident of Chandrapur
3) Goma son of Tukaram Shende, aged Major,
resident of Urja Nagar, Chandrapur
versus
Respondents : 1) Maharashtra State Power Generation
Company Limited, through its Deputy
General Manager (Generation Works), Prakashgad
6th floor, Bandra (East), Mumbai
2) The Chief General Manager, Maharashtra
State Power Generation Company Limited, c/o
Super Thermal Power Station, Urja Nagar,
Chandrapur
3) The learned Member, Industrial Court,
Chandrapur
Shri A. R. Patil, Advocate for petitioners
Shri A. D. Mohgaonkar, Advocate for respondents no. 1 & 2
Shri H. R. Dhumale, Asst. Govt. Pleader for respondent no. 3
Coram : Z. A. Haq, J
Dated : 11th h July, 2016
Oral Judgment
1. Heard Shri A. R. Patil, Advocate for petitioners; Shri A. D.
Mohgaonkar, Advocate for respondents no. 1 and 2 and Shri H. R. Dhumale,
Assistant Government Pleader for respondent no. 3.
2. Rule. Rule made returnable forthwith.
3. The petitioners have assailed the order passed by the Industrial
Court rejecting their claim for House Rent Allowance. The petitioners along
with other employees filed complaint under Section 28 of the Maharashtra
Recognition of Trade Unions and Prevention of Unfair Labour Practices Act,
1971 staking their claim for House Rent Allowance. The employer opposed
the claim of the employees.
4. After considering the contentions of the respective parties, the
Industrial Court, by the impugned order, has upheld the claim of some of the
employees who were co-complainants along with the petitioners.
The facts on record and the conclusions of the Industrial Court
show that the entitlement of employees working with the respondents no. 1
and 2 for House Rent Allowance was subject to their fulfilling the conditions.
The claim of the petitioners is rejected on the ground that the petitioners had
retired on attaining the age of superannuation during the pendency of
complaint.
The reason given by the Industrial Court for rejecting the claim
of the petitioners is unsustainable. If the petitioners fulfill the required
conditions and are entitled for House Rent Allowance, they cannot be denied
the same only because they have attained the age of superannuation when
the complaint is decided.
5. In view of the above, the impugned order, to the extent it
rejects the claim of the petitioners, is set aside. It is held that the petitioners
are entitled for the House Rent Allowance, as claimed in the complaint.
Rule made absolute in the above terms. In the circumstances,
parties to bear their own costs.
Z. A. HAQ, J
joshi
