Bombay High Court
The State Of Maharashtra vs Suryabhan Pundlik Khalane & ... on 28 July, 2016
Bench: R.V. Ghuge
WP/3601/1995
1
IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE OF BOMBAY
BENCH AT AURANGABAD
WRIT PETITION NO. 3601 OF 1995
The State of Maharashtra
through Sub Divisional Engineer,
Irrigation Sub Division, Chalisgaon
No.1, Tq. Chalisgaon, District Jalgaon. ..Petitioner
Versus
1. Suryabhan Pundlik Khalane
C/o Devidas Bandarde,
Sarva Sharmik Sangh,
Nayayan Wadi, Chalisgaon,ig
District Jalgaon.
2. The learned Presiding Officer,
Labour Court, Jalgaon. ..Respondents
...
Advocate for Petitioner : Shri D.R.Shelke & Smt. S.D.Shelke
Advocate for Respondent 1 : Shri Ashutosh Kulkarni
...
CORAM : RAVINDRA V. GHUGE, J.
Dated: July 28, 2016
...
ORAL JUDGMENT :-
1. The petitioner challenges the judgment and award dated
17.12.1994 by which, the Labour Court, Jalgaon has allowed
Reference (IDA) No.24 of 1993 and has directed the petitioner to
reinstate the respondents in service with continuity and full
backwages w.e.f. 8.1.1990, except backwages for the period
8.1.1990 to 31.10.1991.
2. I have considered the submissions of the learned Advocates for
WP/3601/1995
the respective sides at length.
3. There is no dispute that, in between 1.12.1988 and 8.1.1990,
the respondent / workman was working as a Daily Wager at the Sub-
division Chalisgaon No.1. There is also no dispute that the petitioner
did not file its written statement and did not lead any evidence
before the Labour Court to dispute the contentions of the workman.
It is equally undisputed that the award delivered by the Labour Court
is based only on the conclusion arrived at in paragraph No.4 that,
"Therefore, this Court thinks it just and proper, not to hesitate itself
to accede to and take it has read and recorded contention as
mentioned therein in the form of affidavit i.e. only one place of
affidavit of course this Court takes cursory glance before it conclude
its findings supported with the reasons and if there any delay caused
in approaching with the appropriate conciliation officer by the II
party workman."
4. This Court by order dated 29.8.1997, admitted this petition
and granted interim relief in terms of prayer clause (D), which reads
as under:-
" (D) Pending hearing and final disposal of this writ petition,
stay may kindly be granted to the execution of the judgment
and award passed by he learned respondent No.2 in Ref. (IDA)
No.24 of 1993, dated 17.12.94."
WP/3601/1995
5. Consequentially, the respondent / employee is out of
employment. It is brought to my notice that an application under
Section 17B of the Industrial Disputes Act, 1947 seeking last drawn
wages during the pendency of this petition, had not been filed by the
respondent.
6. The petitioner relies upon the judgment of the Honourable
Supreme Court
in the mater of M.P.State
Development and another Vs. S.C.Pandey [(2006) 2 SCC 716], to
Agro Industries
contend that the workman has to prove the completion of 240 days.
7. The respondent has placed reliance upon the judgment of the
Honourable Supreme Court in the matter of Assistant Engineer,
Rajasthan Development Corporation and another Vs. Gitam Singh
[(2013) 5 SCC 136] and BSNL Vs. Bhurumal [(2014) 7 SCC 177], praying
for compensation or backwages.
8. In the facts of the case, I deem it proper to place reliance
upon the following four judgments:-
1. Assistant Engineer, Rajasthan State Agriculture Marketing
Board, Sub-Division, Kota Vs. Mohanlal [2013 LLR 1009],
WP/3601/1995
2. Assistant Engineer, Rajasthan Development Corporation
and another Vs. Gitam Singh [(2013) 5 SCC 136] (supra)
3. BSNL Vs. Man Singh [(2012) 1 SCC 558] and
4. Jagbir Singh Vs. Haryana State Agriculture Marketing Board
[(2009) 15 SCC 327].
9. In the above four judgments, the Honourable Supreme Court
has concluded that in cases of short tenure of employment which are
followed by long spell of unemployment, it would be inappropriate
and impracticable to award reinstatement with continuity and
backwages. Quantum of compensation, approximately, at the rate of
Rs.30,000/- per year of service, has been held to be just and proper.
10. In the instant case, there has been no evidence before the
Labour Court, except the affidavit filed by the respondent in lieu of
examination in chief, to conclude that he had worked for 240 days in
the continuous and uninterrupted service in each year for a period of
two years. So also, had the respondent filed an application under
Section 17-B, he would have been entitled for monthly last drawn
wages till the disposal of this petition.
11. Keeping in view these aspects, I am inclined to quantify
compensation of Rs.60,000/- to the respondent in lieu of
WP/3601/1995
reinstatement, continuity and backwages.
12. This petition is, therefore, partly allowed. The impugned
award dated 17.12.1994 is modified by directing the petitioner to pay
compensation of Rs.60,000/- (Rs. Sixty Thousand only/-) to the
respondent within a period of twelve weeks from today, failing which
the said amount shall carry interest at the rate of 3% p.a. from the
date of the impugned award dated 17.12.1984.
13.
Rule is made partly absolute in the above terms.
( RAVINDRA V. GHUGE, J. )
...
akl/d
