Bombay High Court
Executive Engineer & Others vs S.R.Katore on 20 July, 2016
Bench: R.V. Ghuge
WP/4509/1995
1
IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE OF BOMBAY
BENCH AT AURANGABAD
WRIT PETITION NO. 4509 OF 1995
1. The Executive Engineer,
Kukdi Irrigation Project,
Division No.3, At and post
Shirur, Tq. Shirur, Dist. Pune.
2. The Sub Divisional Engineer,
Kukdi Left Canal,
Subdivision No.13,
Tq. Shrigonda, Dist. Ahmednagar.
3. The Superintending Engineer,
Kukdi Project Circle, Pune.
4. The Executive Engineer,
Kukdi Distribution and
Construction Division,
At Post Autewadi, Tq. Shrigonda,
District Ahmednagar.
5. The Sub-Divisional Officer,
Meena Canal, Sub Division No.4,
At and post Kuldharan,
Taluka Karjat, Dist. Ahmednagar. ..Petitioners
Versus
Shri Shahaji Rajaram Katore
Resident of Ukkadgaon
Taluka Shrigonda, District
Ahmednagar. ..Respondent
...
Advocate for Petitioners : Shri B.B.Yenge
Advocate for Respondent : None present
...
CORAM : RAVINDRA V. GHUGE, J.
Dated: July 20, 2016
...
WP/4509/1995
ORAL JUDGMENT:-
1. The petitioner has challenged the judgment dated 27.4.1995,
delivered by the Industrial Court, Ahmednagar by which Complaint
(ULP) No.10 of 1990, filed by the respondent was allowed and he was
granted permanency with all consequential benefits from 3.1.1990.
2. This petition was admitted on 21.9.1995 and interim relief in
terms of prayer clause "e" was granted, which reads as under:-
"(e) to stay the impugned order dated 27.4.1995 in Complaint
(ULP) No.10 of 1990, by way of interim relief during the
pendency and final hearing of the instant petition. "
3. The Civil Application No.2617 of 1997 filed by the respondent /
employee praying for vacating the interim relief was rejected by this
Court on 2.7.1998.
4. This petition was to be heard finally on 11.5.2016. None
appeared for the parties. On 30.6.2016 and 5.7.2016 too, none
appeared for the parties. I have heard the learned Advocate for the
petitioner.
5. The respondent had specifically averred in his complaint that
he was working as a Wireman from 15.12.1988. The documents
WP/4509/1995
placed on record by the respondent below Exhibit U-14/1 to 14/3
indicate that the respondent was working in between 10.12.1988 to
30.12.1989. The petitioner had taken a specific stand that he was
working on contract basis as and when the work was available.
6. The complaint was filed on 3.1.1990. It thus indicates from
the evidence that the respondent did not claim that he was working
with the petitioner after 30.12.1989.
7.
It is settled law that merely because a worker completes 240
days in continuous employment, especially in public employment and
Government instrumentalities, permanency cannot be claimed only
by virtue of completion of 240 days. The last drawn salary of the
respondent is said to be Rs.600/- per month.
8. On account of the interim relief granted by this Court and the
rejection of the Civil Application praying for vacating the interim
relief, the impugned judgment has been stayed.
9. Considering the above, I do not find that the Industrial Court
was right in granting permanency with benefits incidental and
consequential thereto with effect from 3.1.1990. The impugned
judgment is, therefore, perverse and deserves to be set aside.
WP/4509/1995
10. The Honourable Apex Court has laid down the law that an
employee, who has put in short spell of working, ought not to be
granted benefits of service, in the following four judgments.:-
1. Assistant Engineer, Rajasthan State Agriculture Marketing
Board, Sub-Division, Kota Vs. Mohanlal [2013 LLR 1009],
2. Assistant Engineer, Rajasthan Development 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].
11. The Apex Court has therefore, concluded that compensation
for each year of service could be granted rather than reinstating an
employee in service.
12. In the light of the above, this petition is partly allowed. The
impugned judgment is quashed and set aside and Complaint (ULP)
No.10 of 1990 stands dismissed. The petitioner shall pay a lump sum
compensation to the respondent for an amount of Rs.30,000/- within
twelve weeks from today.
13. Needless to state, in the event, the respondent has been
continued in service by the petitioner from January 1990 and if he is
still in employment, this order shall, therefore, not take effect and
the respondent shall then be entitled for all service benefits as will
WP/4509/1995
be available in law.
14. Rule is made partly absolute in the above terms.
15. No costs.
( RAVINDRA V. GHUGE, J. )
...
akl/d
