Chief Officer, Nagar Parishad, ... vs Inamdar Gausmohiyoddin ...
2016 Latest Caselaw 3429 Bom

                                             1
                                                               913 WRIT PETITION.8776.2015.odt


                  THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY,
                           BENCH AT AURANGABAD.




                                                                              
                         APPELLATE SIDE JURISDICTION




                                                      
                              WRIT PETITION NO. 8776 OF 2015

    Chief Officer,
    Nagar Parishad Beed,




                                                     
    Tal. & Dist. Beed.                                    ... PETITIONER
                                                         (Orig. non-applicant)

                      V E R S U S




                                          
    Inamdar Gausmohiyoddin Jahuroddin,
                                 
    Age major years, Occu. Service,
    R/o. Shahensha (Laximan) Nagar, Beed,
    Tal. & Dist. Beed.                                    ... RESPONDENT
                                
                                                         (Orig. applicant)

                                        ...
    Mr. S. S. Thombre, Advocate for Petitioner.
      


    Mr. M. K. Deshpande, Advocate for Respondent.
                                       ...
   



                                              CORAM  : P. R. BORA, J.

                                              DATE      : 28th June, 2016.





    ORAL JUDGMENT: 


    .                 Rule.  Rule made returnable forthwith.  By consent of the

learned counsel appearing for the parties, the matter is taken up for

final disposal.

2 The present writ petition is filed against the order passed

913 WRIT PETITION.8776.2015.odt

by the Labour Court, Aurangabad on 25th November, 2014 in

Application (IDA) No.13 of 2012. The aforesaid application was filed

by the present Respondent under Section 33(C)(2) of the Industrial

Disputes Act. The Labour Court has allowed the said application and

has directed the present Petitioner to pay Rs.3,48,333/- to the

Applicant with interest @ 12% per annum from 8 th August, 2012 till the

realization of the entire said amount.

This Court vide order passed on 4th January, 2016 has

restrained the present Respondent from seeking execution of the

impugned order on condition that the Petitioner deposits an amount of

Rs.2,25,000/- in this Court.

4 Shri Thombre, learned counsel submitted that the

impugned order is an ex-parte order. The learned counsel submitted

that though a counsel was appointed to represent the Petitioner, he

did not appear in the said matter nor any say could be filed on behalf

of the Petitioner. The learned counsel submitted that in such

circumstances, without there being any say from the Petitioner and

merely relying on the averments made in the application so filed by

the present Respondent, the judgment has been passed. The

913 WRIT PETITION.8776.2015.odt

learned counsel submitted that in fact, the Respondent is not entitled

to receive any amount as has been claimed by him in the application

filed before the Labour Court. The learned counsel submitted that the

Municipal Council needs to be given an opportunity to file say in the

said matter and to cross-examine the Respondent and also to adduce

necessary evidence.

5 The learned counsel appearing for the Respondent has

strongly opposed for granting the request so made by the Petitioner.

The learned counsel submitted that adequate opportunities were

given to the Petitioner for appearance in the matter before the Labour

Court as well as for filing the say in the said matter. The learned

counsel submitted that it was the negligence on the part of the

Municipal Council which has resulted in passing the ex-parte order.

The learned counsel submitted that the Labour Court while deciding

the application has not only relied upon the averments made in the

application, but also examined its legality and a reasoned order has

been passed, which requires no interference.

6 After having considered the arguments advanced by the

learned counsel for the respective parties, it appears to me that

913 WRIT PETITION.8776.2015.odt

ultimately the matter requires to be decided on merits. There may be

some negligence on the part of the Petitioner, for which it can be

penalized by asking to pay adequate cost to the Respondent but it

cannot be denied an opportunity to contest the matter on merits. I am

therefore, inclined to remit back the mater to the Labour Court with a

direction to decide it afresh by permitting the Petitioner to file its say

and to adduce evidence in its behalf.

The learned counsel appearing for the Respondent during

the course of arguments has prayed for permitting the Respondent to

withdraw the amount of Rs.2,25,000/- deposited by the Petitioner in

pursuance to the order passed by this Court. The learned counsel

submitted that the Respondent may be permitted to withdraw the said

amount and with such permission, the matter may be remanded to the

Labour Court for its decision afresh. The request so made on behalf

of the Respondent cannot be wholly accepted in view of the fact that

very entitlement of the Respondent is disputed by the Municipal

Council. It appears to me that it would meet the ends of justice if the

Respondent is permitted to withdraw an amount of Rs.1,00,000/-

(Rupees One Lac only) on an undertaking that in the event any

adverse order is passed against him in the proceedings before the

913 WRIT PETITION.8776.2015.odt

Labour Court and refund is directed of the said amount by the Labour

Court, he shall refund the said amount within three months from the

date of said order. In the result, the following order.

O R D E R

I. The order dated 25th November, 2014 passed by

the Labour Court, Aurangabad in Application

(IDA) No.13 of 2012 is set aside.

II. The matter is remanded back to the Labour

Court for deciding it afresh by permitting the

Petitioner Municipal Council to file its say on

record and with further permission to cross-

examine the Applicant employee and to adduce

evidence in its behalf, if so desired.

III. The Petitioner shall pay costs of Rs.2,000/-

(Rupees Two Thousand only) to the Respondent

of this petition.

IV. The Respondent is allowed to withdraw a sum of

Rs.1,00,000/- (Rupees One Lac Only) from out

913 WRIT PETITION.8776.2015.odt

of the amount of Rs.2,25,000/- deposited by the

Petitioner in this Court on an undertaking that in

the event any adverse order is passed against

him by the Labour Court in Application (IDA)

No.13 of 2012, he will re-deposit the said amount

within two months of passing of such order.

V.

The balance amount is permitted to be

withdrawn by the Petitioner alongwith interest, if

any, accrued thereon.

VI. Rule is made absolute in above terms.

VII. Pending civil application stands disposed of.

[ P. R. BORA, J. ] ndm