Maharashtra State Road ... vs Siddharth Rohidas Sonkamble
2016 Latest Caselaw 4276 Bom

                                             1




                                                                              
              IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE OF BOMBAY   
                          BENCH AT AURANGABAD




                                                      
                       WRIT PETITION NO.1787 OF 2015

    Maharashtra State Road Development
    Corporation Ltd.,
    Snehnagar, Dist.Nanded,




                                                     
    Through its Executive Engineer                                PETITIONER


    VERSUS 




                                            
    Siddharth Rohidas Sonkamble,ig
    Age-24 years, Occu-Nil,
    R/o Takli, Tq.Loha, Dist.Nanded                               RESPONDENT

WITH WRIT PETITION NO.8216 OF 2015

Siddharth Rohidas Sonkamble, Age-25 years, Occu-Nil,

PETITIONER R/o Takli, Tq.Loha, Dist.Nanded

VERSUS Maharashtra State Road Development Corporation Ltd.,

Snehnagar, Dist.Nanded, Through its Executive Engineer RESPONDENT

Mr.S.V.Adwant, Advocate for the petitioner/Management. Mr.Govind Kulkarni h/f Mr.M.P.Pawde, Advocate for the respondent/employee.

( CORAM : RAVINDRA V. GHUGE, J.) DATE : 29/07/2016

ORAL JUDGMENT :

1. Both these petitions are admitted vide order of this Court dated

khs/JULY 2016/1787-d

01/03/2016.

2. The petitioner is aggrieved by the judgment dated 26/04/2011

delivered by the Labour Court, Nanded, by which Complaint (ULP)

No.93/2009, filed by the respondent, has been allowed and he has been

granted reinstatement with continuity and full back wages from

31/08/2009. The petitioner is also aggrieved by the judgment of the

Industrial Court, Jalna dated 30/10/2014 by which Revision (ULP)

No.48/2011 filed by the petitioner has been rejected.

3. I have considered the submissions of the learned Advocates for

the respective sides.

4. The petitioner/Corporation, undertook a project of completion of

road in Nanded area. They set up a temporary office and engaged the

respondent as a "Peon" on 12/02/2007. There is no dispute that there

was no advertisement and no selection process undertaken by the

petitioner/Management on the plea that the engagement of the

respondent/employee was purely on temporary basis during the project.

5. The bank account of the respondent with the Bhagyalaxmi

Sah.Bank Ltd.,Nanded was linked for the purposes of paying his wages.

The respondent worked upto 31/08/2009 and thereafter no work was

khs/JULY 2016/1787-d

allotted to him, owing to which he preferred the complaint before the

Labour Court. By the impugned judgment, the Labour Court concluded

that since documents have not been produced by the petitioner and as

the respondent has produced the bank book indicating the payments

made to him, it is presumed that he has worked continuously from

12/02/2007 till 31/08/2009. It was also concluded that another

person by name Mr. Syed Arif was engaged and retained in service by

the petitioner

6. After considering the submissions of the learned Advocates and

the impugned judgments, it clearly appears that the engagement of the

respondent was on temporary basis since there was neither any

advertisement nor any vacancy of a substantive post of peon available as

against which the selection process could be undertaken. The

Integrated Road Development Project (IRDP), which commenced at

Nanded, led the petitioner to engage the respondent who also hails from

Nanded, as a "Peon" on temporary basis. The Labour Court has allowed

the complaint on the ground that an adverse inference of continued

employment can be drawn and Section 25-F of the I.D. Act has not been

complied with.

7. In the above fact situation, it cannot be ignored that the

respondent was engaged as a Peon in the office, that was temporarily set

khs/JULY 2016/1787-d

up by the petitioner for completing the IRD Project at Nanded. There is

no dispute that the said project has concluded. In this backdrop, in my

view, Section 2 (oo)(bb) of the I.D.Act would be attracted as the services

of the respondent have been dispensed with, upon being engaged in a

project. Such disengagement, therefore, is an exception to retrenchment

as is defined under the I.D.Act and hence in the light of the applicability

of section 2 (oo)(bb), the disengagement of the respondent could not be

said to be an act of retrenchment. The Industrial Court has rejected the

Revision Petition filed by the petitioner on the ground that there is no

perversity in the view taken by the Labour Court.

8. It is conspicuous that Section 2(oo)(bb) was not brought to the

notice of the Labour Court or the Industrial Court. The petitioner had

produced some documents below list Exhibit C-11 before the Industrial

Court. These documents were not before the Labour Court as they

pertain to the completion of the project. The contention of the petitioner

is that the said documents were with regard to completion of the project,

which was underway when the Labour Court dealt with the matter and

hence they were not produced as those documents were generated only

on account of the completion of the project.

9. In the above fact situation, I deem it proper, while setting aside

the impugned judgments, to compensate the respondent with a

khs/JULY 2016/1787-d

quantified amount.

10. Under the orders of this Court, the petitioner has deposited

Rs.1,25,000/- as on 15/04/2015.

11. In the light of the above, this petition is partly allowed. The

impugned judgment of the Labour Court dated 26/04/2011 is modified

and the respondent is granted compensation of Rs.50,000/- (Rs.Fifty

thousand only) in the light of having completed 2 years service with the

petitioner. As such, the respondent would be at liberty to withdraw an

amount of Rs.50,000/- from this Court by producing tangible identity

proof in the nature of an election ID card or Aadhar Card which is self

attested and upon identification of the learned Advocate of the

respondent/employee. The remaining amount with interest shall be

withdrawn by the petitioner.

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

application is, therefore, disposed of.

13. Consequent to the above, WP No.8216/2015 filed by the

respondent, seeking full back wages, stands dismissed. Rule is

discharged.

( RAVINDRA V. GHUGE, J.)

khs/JULY 2016/1787-d