Bombay High Court
The Range Forest Officer,Jalgaon vs Bhila Sura Chavan & Another on 17 June, 2016
Bench: P.R. Bora
IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE OF BOMBAY
BENCH AT AURANGABAD
WRIT PETITION NO.5488 OF 1995
The Range forest Officer,
Mohmandli, Raver,
Tq.Raver, Dist. Jalgaon.
...PETITIONER
VERSUS
1.
Shri Bhila s/o Sura Chavan,
Age Major, occu: Service,
R/o Jansi, Post.Kusumba,
Tq. Raver, Dist. Jalgaon.
2. The Hon'ble Labour Judge,
Labour Court, Jalgaon.
...RESPONDENTS
...
Mr. S.W.Mundhe, AGP for the petitioner.
Shri S.R.Barlinge, Advocate, for respondent no.1.
Respondent no.2 served.
...
CORAM: P.R.BORA, J.
DATE : June 17th, 2016
...
ORAL JUDGMENT:
1. The order passed by the Labour Court, Jalgaon,
in Reference (IDA) No.22/1991 is challenged in the
::: Uploaded on - 22/06/2016 ::: Downloaded on - 30/07/2016 05:44:56 :::
present petition by the Range Forest Officer, Raver, district
Jalgaon. The aforesaid Reference was made under clause
(c) of sub-section (1) of Section 10 read with sub-section
(5) of Section 12 of the Industrial Disputes Act, 1947.
The record reveals that though the present petitioner was
served, none appeared for the petitioner and after having
noticed the continuous absence of the present petitioner,
the respondent workman was permitted to lead the
evidence on affidavit. The impugned order shows that
relying on the averments in the affidavit filed on behalf of
the complainant, the learned Labour Court directed
reinstatement of the respondent Workman with continuity
of service and with backwages. The said order is under
challenge in the present writ petition.
2. Learned A.G.P. submitted that no due
opportunity was given to the petitioner Department so as
to put forth its case before the Court in the aforesaid
Reference Application and undue haste was made by the
Court below in allowing the Reference Application and
directing reinstatement of the respondent workman and
that too with full back-wages. Learned A.G.P. further
::: Uploaded on - 22/06/2016 ::: Downloaded on - 30/07/2016 05:44:56 :::
submitted that no reasoning is provided in the impugned
order by the Labour Court as to whether the workman
concerned has worked for continuous period, as has been
alleged by him, with the department during the period
preceding to his termination. Learned A.G.P. further
submitted that the respondent workman was working
under Planned Scheme and as such, he was not entitled
for any relief as was claimed by him. It is brought to my
notice that the order so passed by the Labour Court, so far
as it relates to reinstatement is concerned, the same has
been complied with and the respondent workman was
reinstated and regular salary has been paid to him.
3. In view of the fact that now the period of more
than 21 years has elapsed after filing of the petition, it
does not appear to me that, the finding recorded by the
Labour Court, so far as the relief of reinstatement is
concerned, and further taking into account the fact that
the said order has been complied with by the petitioner
department, any purpose will be served now in upsetting
the said order even if the petitioner department succeeds
in proving that he was not entitled for the said relief. In
::: Uploaded on - 22/06/2016 ::: Downloaded on - 30/07/2016 05:44:56 :::
so far as the relief of back-wages is concerned, admittedly,
since the said respondent workman has not worked during
the said period, and further taking into consideration the
fact that the impugned order does not disclose the
reasons for granting full backwages, it appears to me that
the order so passed, if modified, and the relief of back-
wages so granted is quashed and set aside, it would meet
the ends of justice.
ig Hence, the following order:
ORDER
1) The writ petition is partly allowed.
2) The impugned order, so far as it relates to
back-wages, stands quashed and set aside. Rule is
accordingly made absolute in above terms.
(P.R.BORA)
JUDGE
...
AGP/5488-95wp
