Bombay High Court
Executive Engineer,Mah.Jeevan ... vs Mahesh Sharadrao Tapas on 9 June, 2016
Bench: Z.A. Haq
Judgment 1 wp2529.08.odt
-
IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY,
NAGPUR BENCH, NAGPUR.
WRIT PETITION NO. 2529 OF 2008
Executive Engineer,
Maharashtra Jeevan Pradhikaran,
Division No.1, Near Maltekdi,
Camp Road, Amravati.
ig .... PETITIONER.
// VERSUS //
Mahesh Sharadrao Tapas,
Resident of Near D.I.G. Bungalow,
Rao Bahadur Khare Chawl,
Camp, Amravati.
.... RESPONDENT
.
______________________________________________________________
Shri D.M.Kakani, Advocate for Petitioner.
Shri P.D.Meghe, Advocate for Respondent.
______________________________________________________________
CORAM : Z.A.HAQ, J.
DATED : JUNE 09, 2016.
ORAL JUDGMENT :
1. Heard learned advocates for the respective parties.
Judgment 2 wp2529.08.odt
2. The petitioner/ employer has challenged the award passed
by the Labour Court answering the reference in affirmative and
directing the petitioners to reinstate the respondent on his former post
within two months from the publication of the award with continuity of
service and to pay 40% back wages to him from 1997.
This Court by order dated 24th June, 2008 directed
issuance of notice to the respondent and stayed the effect and
operation of the impugned award. By the order dated 23rd September,
2008 Rule is issued and the interim order is continued.
The respondent had filed Civil Application No. 48 of 2009
on which an order is passed on 18th March, 2009 directing the
petitioner to pay wages to the respondent till decision of the writ
petition, as per Section 17-B of the Industrial Disputes Act, 1971. The
respondent had sought clarification of the order dated 18th March, 2009
and by the order dated 27th July, 2009 this Court clarified that the
respondent would be entitled for minimum wages under Section 17-B
of the Industrial Disputes Act from the date of award excluding the
period for which he was employed in any other establishment. This
order was challenged by the petitioner in Letters Patent Appeal No. 501
Judgment 3 wp2529.08.odt
of 2009 which is disposed on 9th December, 2009. The Division Bench
of this Court directed the petitioner to pay the amount of wages last
drawn or minimum wages applicable to the respondent, whichever is
more, from the date of application under Section 17-B of the Industrial
Disputes Act, 1947. It is undisputed that the respondent is being paid
the amount as per the order passed in Letters Patent Appeal No. 501 of
2009.
3. Shri D.M. Kakani, learned advocate for the petitioner has
submitted that the respondent worked with the petitioner from 12 th
January, 1985 till 30th June, 1985 for 166 days only. It is submitted
that the Labour Court has answered the reference in favour of the
employee concluding that the employer has violated the provisions of
Sections 25-G and 25-H of the Industrial Disputes Act. It is submitted
that the respondent is not working with the petitioner since last about
30 years and therefore, the directions to reinstate the respondent are
required to be set aside. It is further submitted that the petitioner had
been paying wages as per the order passed by the Division Bench of this
Court in Letters Patent Appeal No. 501 of 2009 though the respondent
is not working with the petitioner. It is further submitted that the
respondent has not established that he was not gainfully employed
Judgment 4 wp2529.08.odt
during the period he was not working with the petitioner. The learned
advocate has argued that in the above circumstances, the directions
given by the Labour Court regarding payment of 40% back wages are
also required to be set aside.
4. Shri P.D. Meghe, learned advocate for the respondent
urged that the petitioner has illegally removed the respondent and has
not permitted him to work though workers whose names were below
the name of the respondent in the seniority list and who had worked
with the petitioner only for about 90 days are retained and are brought
on Converted Regular Temporary Establishment (CRTE). It is
submitted that the Labour Court has recorded a finding of fact that the
petitioner has violated the provisions of Section 25-H and 25-G of the
Industrial Disputes Act and the petitioner has not been able to show
that the above finding is unsustainable and in view of this, the natural
consequence is that the respondent has to be reinstated in service with
continuity. The learned advocate has further submitted that the
directions given by the Labour Court for payment of back wages also
does not require any interference by this Court.
Judgment 5 wp2529.08.odt
5. After considering the submissions made by the learned
advocates for the respective parties, examining the material on record
and looking to the fact that the respondent is aged about 52 years at
present and is not working with the petitioner since 1985, in my view,
the interests of justice would be sub-served by directing the petitioner
to pay an amount of Rs.One Lakh towards compensation to the
respondent, in lieu of the reinstatement and back wages.
6. Hence, the following order :
i) The impugned order is modified.
ii) The petitioner is directed to pay Rs.One Lakh towards
compensation in lieu of reinstatement and back wages to
the respondent. The amount shall be paid by the
petitioner to the respondent even till 30th September, 2016.
If the amount is not paid by the petitioner to the
respondent till 30th September, 2016, the petitioner shall
be liable to pay interest on the amount of Rs.One Lakh @
9% per annum from 1st February, 2008 (i.e. the date
Judgment 6 wp2529.08.odt
subsequent to the date of award passed by the Labour
Court till the amount is paid to the respondent).
The petition is disposed in the above terms. In the
circumstances, the parties to bear their own costs.
ig JUDGE
RRaut..
