Bombay High Court
Shri Indal Shyamraoji Sarode vs Vansh Nimay Infraprojects Pvt. ... on 28 July, 2016
Bench: A.S. Chandurkar
W.P. No.3606/2014 1 Judgment
IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY
NAGPUR BENCH, NAGPUR
WRIT PETITION NO.3606 OF 2014
Petitioner : Vansh Nimay Infraprojects Ltd.,
Nagpur City Bus Services,
N.I.T. Sankul, 3rd Floor, Sitabuldi,
Through its Manager (HR),
Sanjay s/o Rambhau Alone.
ig -- Versus --
Respondents : 1] Shri Liladhar s/o Appaji Chimurkar,
Aged about 52 years, Occu : Service,
R/o Post Godhni Railway,
Bhim Nagar, Nagpur.
2] The Presiding Officer,
Hon'ble Second Labour Court, Nagpur,
Civil Lines, Nagpur.
with
WRIT PETITION NO.3608 OF 2014
Petitioner : Vansh Nimay Infraprojects Ltd.,
Nagpur City Bus Services,
N.I.T. Sankul, 3rd Floor, Sitabuldi,
Through its Manager (HR),
Sanjay s/o Rambhau Alone.
-- Versus --
Respondents : 1] Shri Indal s/o Shyamraoji Sarode,
Aged about 47 years, Occu : Service,
R/o Post Godhni, Near Bharat Petrol Pump,
Nagpur.
2] The Presiding Officer,
Hon'ble Second Labour Court, Nagpur,
Civil Lines, Nagpur.
::: Uploaded on - 01/08/2016 ::: Downloaded on - 02/08/2016 00:14:08 :::
W.P. No.3606/2014 2 Judgment
with
WRIT PETITION NO.448 OF 2015
Petitioner : Shri Indal Shyamraoji Sarode,
Aged 46 years, Occupation : Workman,
R/o Bhimnagar, Nagpur.
-- Versus --
Respondents : 1] Vansh Nimay Infraprojects Pvt. Ltd.,
ig through its Manager,
Nagpur City Bus Services,
N.I.T. Sankul, 3rd Floor, Sitabuldi, Nagpur,
Maharashtra.
2] The Presiding Officer,
Hon'ble Second Labour Court,
Civil Lines, Nagpur, Maharashtra.
with
WRIT PETITION NO.458 OF 2015
Petitioner : Shri Liladhar s/o Appaji Chimurkar,
Aged 62 years, Occupation : Workman,
R/o Bhimnagar, Nagpur.
-- Versus -
Respondents : 1] Vansh Nimay Infraprojects Pvt. Ltd.,
through its Manager,
Nagpur City Bus Services,
N.I.T. Sankul, 3rd Floor, Sitabuldi, Nagpur,
Maharashtra.
2] The Presiding Officer,
Hon'ble Second Labour Court,
Civil Lines, Nagpur, Maharashtra.
::: Uploaded on - 01/08/2016 ::: Downloaded on - 02/08/2016 00:14:08 :::
W.P. No.3606/2014 3 Judgment
=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=
Shri V.P. Marpakwar, Advocate for the Petitioner in Writ Petition Nos.3606 and 3608 of 2014
and for the Respondent No.1 in Writ Petition Nos.448 and 458 of 2015.
Shri N.B. Rathod, Advocate for the Petitioner in Writ Petition Nos.448 and 458 of 2015
and for the Respondent No.1 in Writ Petition Nos.3606 and 3608 of 2014.
Ms. T.H. Khan, Assistant Government Pleader for the Respondent No.2 in all the petitions.
=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=
C ORAM : A.S. CHANDURKAR, J.
DATE : 28
JULY, 2016.
th
COMMON JUDGMENT :-
Since the common issues arise in all these writ petitions, they are
being decided together by this common judgment. Rule. Rule made
returnable forthwith. Heard finally with the consent of the learned Counsel
for the parties.
02] Writ Petition Nos.448 and 458 of 2015 are filed by the
employees of the petitioner in Writ Petition Nos.3606 and 3608 of 2014, since
they are aggrieved by denial of 50% back wages by the Labour Court while
directing their reinstatement. The management is aggrieved by the order of
reinstatement along with grant of 50% back wages to the said employees.
03] The case of the respective employees is that they were in
engagement with the employer which was running transport services. Their
services came to be orally terminated on 18/08/2011 and hence they
approached the Labour Commissioner making a grievance in that regard. As
W.P. No.3606/2014 4 Judgment
the employer did not respond to the notices and the conciliation proceedings
failed, the matter was referred to the Labour Court for determining the
question as to whether the services of the employees had been legally
terminated. After the parties led evidence, the Labour Court vide its award
dated 19/08/2013 directed reinstatement of the employees with 50% back
wages.
04] Shri N.B. Rathod, the learned Counsel for the employees after
arguing for some time in Writ Petition Nos.448 and 458 of 2015, on
instructions from the petitioners who are present in the Court, states that the
said petitioners would be satisfied if the order of reinstatement in their favour
is maintained. He states that as per the instructions of the said petitioners
they are willing to forgo 50% back wages.
05] Shri V.P. Marpakwar, the learned Counsel for the employer, on
instructions, submits that the services of the said workmen were never
terminated. They had been taken back in service and they were continued in
employment.
06] Considering the aforesaid facts and as the workmen have
consented to forgo 50% of the back wages, the following order would serve
the ends of justice.
W.P. No.3606/2014 5 Judgment
i. The award passed by the Labour Court dated 19/08/2013 is partly
modified. The petitioners in Writ Petition Nos.448/2015 and
458/2015 shall continue in employment of the petitioner in Writ
Petition Nos.3606/2014 and 3608/2014 as per the terms of their
initial appointment. The direction to pay 50% back wages in the
impugned award shall not operate.
ii. Rule is made absolute in aforesaid terms with no order as to
costs.
JUDGE
*waghmare
W.P. No.3606/2014 6 Judgment
C E R T I F I C A T E
I certify that this judgment uploaded is a true and
correct copy of the original signed judgment.
Uploaded by: S.D. Waghmare Uploaded on : 30/07/2016
P.A. to the Hon'ble Judge.
