The Sub Divisional Officer Public ... vs Shri Prakash Kisan Khule
2016 Latest Caselaw 3002 Bom

                                                                                                                                            wp5875-13




                                                                                                                                          
                                                                                 1

                IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY, 




                                                                                                      
                           NAGPUR BENCH, NAGPUR
                                             WRIT PETITION NO.5875 OF 2013




                                                                                                     
    1. The Sub-Divisional Officer
       Public Works Department,
       Washim.




                                                                               
    2. The Executive Engineer,
       Public Works Department, 
       Washim,
                                                 
    3. The Superintending Engineer,
                                                
       Public Works Department, 
       Akola.                       ...                                                                              ...         Petitioners. 

                          ..Versus..
        


    Shri Prakash Kisan Khule,
    Aged about Major, 
     



    R/o Mkahatma Fule Chowk, 
    Near Dr. Fatak House, Washim, 
    Tah. And Distt. Washim.        ...                                                                               ...       Respondent.
    .......................................................................................................................................................

Mr. Bhagde, AGP for the petitioners.

Mr. A.R. Deshpande, advocate for respondent.

.......................................................................................................................................................

                                                            CORAM                 :  A.S. CHANDURKAR, 
                                                                                                         J.
                                                            DATED                 :  20 th
                                                                                            JUNE,
                                                                                                  2016.





    ORAL JUDGMENT.

The petitioners have taken exception to the order passed by the

Labour Court in Reference made under provisions of Section 2A of the

Industrial Disputes Act, 1947 ( for short the Act). By the impugned order the

.....2/-

wp5875-13

claim of the respondent has been upheld and he has been directed to be

reinstated on the post of 'Majdoor' with continuity in service but without any

back-wages. It is submitted by Shri Bhagde, the learned Assistant

Government Pleader, that the Labour Court was not justified in accepting the

claim of the respondent. He submitted that the respondent had not

completed period of 240 days and the burden to prove the same was on the

respondent. The petitioners had come up with a specific stand that the record

pertaining to engagement of the respondent had been destroyed in fire and

therefore merely on the say of the respondent, his case could not have been

accepted. This fact was brought on record by examining the Deputy Engineer

on behalf of the petitioners. He, therefore, prayed for setting aside the

impugned order.

Shri Deshpande, the learned counsel for the respondent

supported the impugned order. He submitted that despite specific order

being passed by the Labour Court for production of necessary record, the

same was not done. Though it was case of the petitioners that the relevant

records had been burnt, in the cross-examination, the witness examined on

behalf of the petitioners admitted that report in that regard was not

submitted. No document informing police or the fire department was placed

on record. He, therefore, submitted that the order of the Labour Court

.....3/-

wp5875-13

deserves to be maintained.

After hearing respective counsel for the parties, I do not find

that the Labour Court was in error in allowing the complaint. The Labour

Court after considering the evidence on record came to the conclusion that

the respondent had completed 240 days of service. Similarly situated daily

wagers were also taken back in service. The inference drawn for non-

production of the record is also justified in the absence of any report with

regard to the records being destroyed by the fire. Moreover, this Court in

W.P. No. 3504 and 3505 of 2015 considered identical challenges and vide

order dated 15.1.2016 dismissed the writ petitions. The respondent herein is

similarly situated. Moreover, the relief of back-wages has been refused to the

respondent. With these facts, therefore, I do not find any case made out to

interfere in writ jurisdiction. The writ petition is, therefore, dismissed. Rule

stands discharged. No costs.

JUDGE

Hirekhan

...../-