Matru Sewa ... vs Smt.Shahista W/O Praveen Shaikh
2016 Latest Caselaw 3096 Bom

                                             1                                           wp3649.08




                                                                                      
                    IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY,
                     




                                                              
                              NAGPUR BENCH, NAGPUR.


     WRIT PETITION NO.3649 OF 2008




                                                             
     Matru Sewa Sangh,
     Sitabuldi, Nagpur, 
     through its President.                                            ....       PETITIONER




                                                
                  VERSUS     
     Smt. Shahista w/o Praveen Shaikh,
     Aged about - Major, 
                            
     Occupation - Not known, 
     C/o Shri R.R. Naidu, General Secretary,
     Hammer Workers Union,
     C/o Smt. Kamal Naikwal, 
      

     Matru Sewa Sangh, Sitabuldi, Nagpur.                              ....       RESPONDENT
   



     ______________________________________________________________
               Shri V.P. Marpakwar, Advocate for the petitioner, 
                           None for the respondent.





      ______________________________________________________________


                                   CORAM : Z.A. HAQ, J.

DATED : 22 nd JUNE, 2016

ORAL JUDGMENT :

1. Heard Shri V.P. Marpakwar, Advocate for the petitioner.

None appears for the respondent though served.

2. The employee approached the Deputy Commissioner of

2 wp3649.08

Labour with the grievance that her services were illegally terminated

with effect from 16-07-1996 and she was not paid retrenchment

compensation also. The Deputy Commissioner of Labour referred the

dispute for adjudication to the Labour Court.

3. Before the Labour Court, the employee contended that she

was working with the employer as Auxiliary Nurse-cum-Midwife from

05-12-1994 and was paid salary of Rs.1,534/- per month, that when

she reported on duty on 16-07-1996 an order was issued terminating

her services. The employee contended that though her services were

terminated on 16-07-1996, she was offered the retrenchment

compensation on 18-07-1996 by cheque and therefore, the termination

was bad in law as retrenchment compensation was required to be paid

alongwith the order of termination.

4. The employer opposed the claim of the employee.

According to the employer, the services of the employee were

terminated by the order dated 18-07-1996 and the cheque for

retrenchment compensation was given alongwith the termination order

dated 18-07-1996. According to the employer, the employee

approached the employer after fourteen days of the receipt of the

3 wp3649.08

termination order and requested that she should be paid the

retrenchment compensation in cash as she was not having account in

bank, she was asked to approach later, however she had not

approached later to collect the amount in cash. It is submitted that

the respondent is employed at Chandrapur, and this fact is recorded in

paragraph No.18 of the award passed by the Labour Court. It is

submitted that in these circumstances, the impugned award be set

aside.

5. I have examined the documents placed on the record of

the petition. I find that the conclusions of the Labour Court that the

termination is effected on 16-07-1996 and retrenchment compensation

is offered on 18-07-1996, are not supported by evidence on record and

therefore, are unsustainable. The documentary evidence on record i.e.

the termination order dated 18-07-1996 shows that the termination is

effected on 18-07-1996 and the cheque for Rs.5,605/- is given to the

employee alongwith the termination order.

6. However, the cheque given by the employer alongwith the

termination order on 18-07-1996 is not encahsed by the employee.

The communication issued by the President of the petitioner-Sangh

4 wp3649.08

shows that the petitioner-Sangh had accepted to pay Rs.5,605/- to the

employee in cash, accepting her request as the employee was not

having account in bank. In my view, in the facts of the case, it was

obligatory for the employer to pay the retrenchment compensation

alongwith termination order on 18-07-1996 either in cash or by

demand draft. Therefore, it has to be held that the employer has not

paid the retrenchment compensation to the employee at the time of

terminating her services.

7. The employee is not working with the petitioner-employer

since last about twenty years. The employee is working at Chandrapur

and perhaps that is the reason that she is not represented before this

Court. In these facts, in my view, it would be appropriate that the

petitioner-employer pays Rs.30,000/- towards compensation in lieu of

reinstatement and back wages.

8. The employer shall pay the amount of compensation to

the employee by demand draft whenever the employee approaches the

employer and makes a request in writing to it. The employee is not

represented before this Court. The learned Advocate for the employer

states that Shri R.R. Naidu, General Secretary Hammer Workers Union

5 wp3649.08

on whose address the notice of petition was served on the employee, is

also not available on the above address. If the employee approaches

the employer and the employer does not pay the amount of

Rs.30,000/- to the employee by demand draft within one week, the

employee will be at liberty to move an application before the Labour

Court and the Labour Court shall issue notice of the application to the

employer and the employer shall pay the amount of compensation

within one week from the date of receipt of the notice from the Labour

Court. If the employer fails to pay the amount of compensation within

one week of the date of receipt of notice from the Labour Court, the

employer shall be liable to pay interest at 9% per annum on the

amount of compensation, the interest being chargeable from 01-11-

2006 i.e. immediately after the award was passed by the Labour Court.

The petition is disposed in the above terms. In the

circumstances, the parties to bear their own costs.

JUDGE

adgokar