Bombay High Court
The State Of Mah. & Ors vs Anurath Taukaram Puri on 31 March, 2016
Bench: R.V. Ghuge
1
IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE OF BOMBAY
BENCH AT AURANGABAD
WRIT PETITION NO.3923 OF 2002
1. The State of Maharashtra,
Through Secretary,
2. The Executive Engineer,
Minor Irrigation (Loal Sector)
PETITIONERS
Division, Beed
VERSUS
Anurath Tukaram Puri,
Age-50 years, Occu-Service,
C/o Trade Union Centre,
Bashir Gunj, Beed RESPONDENT
Mrs.S.S.Raut, AGP for the petitioners.
Mr.P.L.Shahane, Advocate for the respondent.
( CORAM : RAVINDRA V. GHUGE, J.)
DATE : 31/03/2016
ORAL JUDGMENT :
1. The petitioners/Establishment is aggrieved by the award dated
27/11/2001 delivered by the Labour Court, Aurangabad by which
Ref.(IDA) No.96/1993 has been answered in the affirmative.
2. This Court admitted this matter on 23/10/2002 and after
hearing both the sides, refused interim relief by order dated
29/11/2002. This Court has observed that since there was no
specific averment in the petition that Page Nos. 19 to 31 were a part
khs/March 2016/3923-d
and parcel of the record before the Industrial Court (should be read
as Labour Court), the contention of the learned AGP that the
respondent/employee was appointed under the Employee Guarantee
Scheme (hereinafter referred to as EGS), was rejected by this Court.
3. The learned AGP has strenuously canvassed that the
respondent/employee was working on the EGS. She, therefore,
submits that in the light of the view taken by this Court, an employee
engaged to work on the EGS cannot question his termination and
cannot seek reinstatement or regularization in employment.
4. She, therefore, submits that though the petitioners have
admitted that the respondent was working in the Department from
01/11/1986 upto 01/03/1992, he was working on Nominal Muster
Roll (NMR) and voluntarily stopped reporting for duties we.f.
02/03/1992. He was never terminated and this fact was brought to
the notice of the Labour Court through paragraph Nos.1, 3 and 6 of
the written statement filed by the petitioners.
5. She, therefore, submits that the impugned award deserves to
be quashed and set aside and the reference deserves to be answered
in the negative.
khs/March 2016/3923-d
6. Mr.P.L.Shahane, appearing on behalf of the respondent/
employee has strenuously supported the impugned award. He
contends that no documentary evidence was placed before the
Labour Court by the petitioners to indicate that he was working as a
Majdoor on EGS. It is admitted that he was working for 5 years and
3 months as a "Chaukidar" considering the contention set out in
paragraph No.1 of the written statement. A "Chaukidar" cannot be a
Majdoor working on EGS. He, therefore, prays for dismissal of this
petition with costs.
7. He further submits that a civil application No.6677/2005 was
filed seeking benefits of Section 17-B of the I.D.Act. By order dated
09/01/2015, this Court has tagged the civil application with this
petition since the civil application was already pending for 10 years
without orders.
8. I have considered the submissions of the learned Advocates for
the respective sides.
9. The operative part of the impugned award especially clause 2
and 3 read as under :-
khs/March 2016/3923-d
"2. The party No.2 is entitled for the relief of reinstatement with
continuity of service, but without back wages or compensation of
Rs.30,000/-, in lieu of reinstatement with continuity of service.
3. The party No.1 is hereby directed to reinstate the Party No.2
with continuity of service, but without back wages or to pay the
amount of Rs.30,000/- towards compensation in lieu of
reinstatement with continuity of service within a period of one
month from the date of publication of award."
10. It is, therefore, apparent that the respondent/employee was
granted the relief of reinstatement with continuity or compensation of
Rs.30,000/- in lieu of reinstatement and continuity. The option was,
therefore, left to the petitioner/Establishment either to reinstate the
employee or pay him compensation of Rs.30,000/-. It is not in
dispute that neither the employee was reinstated nor was he paid
Rs.30,000/-.
11. Considering the directions given by the Labour Court
reproduced as above, and the fact that the respondent/employee has
not challenged the impugned award thereby meaning that he has
accepted the award, would not entitle him to the benefits of Section
17-B. The option of payment of compensation in lieu of
khs/March 2016/3923-d
reinstatement was available to the petitioner.
12. Notwithstanding the above, I find that there was no
documentary record before the Labour Court that the respondent /
employee was a Majdoor working on EGS. Paragraph No.1 of the
written statement of the petitioners indicates that he was working as
a "Chaukidar" and Labourer. In the absence of documentary
evidence, it cannot be accepted that he was working as a Majdoor
under EGS merely because the petitioners so contend.
13. In the light of the above, I do not find any reason to interfere
with the impugned award. Apparently, the petitioners do not desire
to reinstate the respondent/employee. The alternative relief granted
by the Labour Court will therefore have to be enforced from the date
of the impugned award considering the fact that the respondent /
employee has accepted the said award. The amount of Rs.30,000/-
was payable in 2002 after the impugned award was published by the
Labour Court. Even if simple interest @ 3% is granted on the said
amount w.e.f. 2002, the said amount could have grown more than 2
times till this date.
14. In the light of the above, by modifying the Award, I find it
khs/March 2016/3923-d
appropriate to direct the petitioners / Establishment to pay
compensation of Rs.75,000/- to the respondent / employee
considering the simple interest factor for the last 14 years. Said
amount shall be paid within 12 weeks from today.
15. The writ petition is, therefore, partly allowed and Rule is made
partly absolute in the above terms. Civil application in the light of the
above order, does not survive and is disposed of.
( RAVINDRA V. GHUGE, J.)
khs/March 2016/3923-d
