The Chief Engineer And Chief ... vs Arun Vasudeo Gosavi
2016 Latest Caselaw 4229 Bom

                                                                      WP/3187/2016
                                            1

                    IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE OF BOMBAY
                               BENCH AT AURANGABAD




                                                                              
                              WRIT PETITION NO. 3187 OF 2016




                                                      
     1. The Chief Engineer & Chief
     Administrator, Command Area
     Development Authority,
     (Water Resources Department),




                                                     
     Garkheda, Aurangabad.

     2. The Superintending Engineer
     and Administrator, Command Area
     Development Authority, Circle Office,




                                          
     (Water Resources Department),
     Garkheda, Aurangabad.    ig                       ..Petitioners

     Versus

     Arun Vasudeo Gosavi
                            
     C/o Trade Union Centre,
     Gheshram Building, Parbhani.                      ..Respondent

                                           ...
      

                       Advocate for Petitioners : Shri Tandale P.R.
                      Advocate for Respondent : Shri Deshmukh Y.P.
                                           ...
   



                            CORAM : RAVINDRA V. GHUGE, J.

Dated: July 28, 2016 ...

ORAL JUDGMENT :-

1. Heard learned Advocates for the respective parties.

2. Rule.

3. By consent, Rule is made returnable forthwith and the petition

is taken up for final disposal.

WP/3187/2016

4. The petitioner assails the impugned award dated 19.12.2014

passed by the Labour Court, Aurangabad, by which, Reference (IDA)

No.56 of 2005 has been allowed and the respondent has been granted

reinstatement with 25% backwages from 5.12.2005 and continuity of

service from 16.10.1984.

5. He submits that this petition is based on the following factors:-

(a) Though the respondent was working in between

22.2.1979 till 16.10.1984, when he was terminated, he was offered retrenchment compensation and he declined to accept

it.

(b) After termination on 16.10.1984, the respondent slept

over the issue and did not raise an industrial dispute for 21 years till 2005.

(c) Reference (IDA) No.56 of 2005 is allowed on 9.12.2014 after 30 years of unemployment of the respondent.

(d) No compensation deserves to be granted to the respondent.

6. Learned Advocate for the respondent employee has strenuously

justified the impugned award. Contention is that:-

(a) the respondent was retrenched in a mass retrenchment dated 16.10.1984 after the list was published in a local news

WP/3187/2016

paper.

(b) The respondent was assured that he would be again re-

inducted after recruitment process begins.

(c) His application dated 21.8.1991 has not been considered

by the employer. After he realized that the employer was not interested in giving him an opportunity in employment, he raised an industrial dispute on 5.12.2005.

(d) The Labour Court noted that the petitioner did not

produce relevant documents in support of it's case and as such, has rightly allowed the Reference.

(e) The petitioner was required to preserve the records and should have produced the records.

(f) The Labour Court has granted only 25% backwages and

that too w.e.f. 5.12.2005 and hence the impugned award is sustainable.

(g) The respondent has attained the age of superannuation and hence, it would be harsh to set aside the impugned award and take away the benefits granted to him by the Labour Court.

7. Having considered the submissions of the learned Advocates, I

find that it is undisputed that he has worked between the dates

mentioned above, which could be for a period of over five years. No

industrial dispute has been raised for 21 years. Since the petitioner

WP/3187/2016

did not adduce proper evidence before the Labour Court, the

contention that he was intermittently working and was not entitled

to be absorbed on Converted Regular Temporary establishment, was

not proved.

8. It cannot be ignored that the Labour Court has over stepped

it's jurisdiction by granting continuity of service with reinstatement

from 16.8.1984, when an industrial dispute was raised after 21 years

and the Labour Court delivered the award after 30 years of the

disengagement of the respondent.

9. Considering the fact that the respondent has put in a short

tenure in employment, which has been followed by a long spell of

unemployment of 30 years, I am inclined to rely upon the following

judgments of the Honourable Supreme Court:-

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].

WP/3187/2016

10. In the light of the above and taking into account that the

Honourable Apex Court has held in the above-said judgments that

compensation of about Rs.30,000/- per year of service put in, would

be appropriate compensation in lieu of reinstatement, continuity and

backwages, I am modifying the impugned award.

11. In the result, this petition is partly allowed. The impugned

award is modified with the direction to the petitioner to pay

compensation of Rs.1,50,000/- (Rs. One Lac Fifty Thousand only/-) to

the respondent in lieu of reinstatement, continuity and backwages

within a period of twelve weeks from today.

12. Rule is made partly absolute in the above terms.

( RAVINDRA V. GHUGE, J. ) ...

akl/d