Bombay High Court
O'Bad Tq.Shetkari S.Kharedi ... vs Namdeo Sambhaji Thorat on 3 March, 2016
Bench: R.V. Ghuge
WP 356/97
- 1 -
IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY
BENCH AT AURANGABAD
WRIT PETITION NO.356/1997
Osmanabad Taluka Shetkari Sahakari
Kharedi Vikri Sangh Ltd.
Through its Manager,
Main Road, Osmanabad.
ig ...Petitioner...
Versus
1 Namdeo S/o Sambhaji Thorat
Age 56 years, Occ : Agriculture,
and business also formerly
Sarpanch of Village Daudpur,
Taluka Osmanabad, Dist. Osmanabad.
2 Judge,
Second Labour Court,
Solapur.
3 Deputy Commissioner of Labour
Malajipura, Aurangabad.
4 The State of Maharashtra.
...Respondents...
.....
Shri S.V. Natu, Advocate for petitioner.
Shri P.L. Shahane, Advocate for respondent.
.....
CORAM: RAVINDRA V. GHUGE, J.
DATE: 03.03.2016
WP 356/97
- 2 -
ORAL JUDGMENT :
1] Respondent nos.2, 3 and 4 are formal parties.
The petitioner shall, therefore, delete respondent nos.2,
3 and 4 forthwith.
2] This petition was admitted by this Court by
order dated 3.7.1998.
3] The petitioner is aggrieved by the judgment and
award dated 27.8.1996 delivered by the Labour Court by
which Reference (IDA) No.2/1984 was allowed and the
respondent was granted reinstatement with continuity and
full back wages.
4] Shri Natu, learned Advocate for the petitioner,
has strenuously criticized the impugned judgment. He has
canvassed a host of factors. Shri Shahane, learned
Advocate for the sole respondent, has supported the
impugned judgment.
5] Though I have considered the lengthy submissions
of the learned Advocates, I am not required to advert to
their entire submissions for the reason that the
respondent has retired on 16.4.1999 after attaining the
age of superannuation.
WP 356/97
- 3 -
6] As such the following dates and events are
relevant :-
[a] The respondent claims to have worked from
1.11.1969 to 30.6.1982 over a period of about 6
years and 6 months.
[b] He was terminated on 1.7.1982 on account of
certain charges leveled upon him.
[c] The respondent raised an industrial dispute
and which was referred to the Labour Court as
Reference (IDA) No.2/1982.
[d] No enquiry was conducted and the charges
were not proved against the respondent, which led
the Labour Court to answer the reference in the
affirmative.
[e] By the impugned judgment and award, the
reference was allowed on 27.8.1996 and the
respondent was granted reinstatement with
continuity of service and full back wages.
[f] Since this Court did not grant a stay to
the order of reinstatement, the petitioner
reinstated the respondent on 1.7.1998 and the
back wages were stayed by this Court.
WP 356/97
- 4 -
[g] He retired from service on 16.4.1999.
[h] The respondent actually worked for 11 years
and 4 months.
[i] By virtue of the impugned award, since
continuity has been granted, he is presumed to
have worked from 1.11.1969 till 16.4.1999 i.e.
about 30 years.
[j] His wages as on 1.7.1982 when he was
terminated were at the rate of Rs.400/- per
month.
[k] His wages on the date of retirement were
approximately at the rate of Rs.3,000/- per
month.
[l] Gratuity for a period of 30 years has not
been paid.
[m] There are some unpaid wages for the period
from 1.7.1998 till 16.4.1999.
7] Considering the above facts and the subsequent
events, coupled with the fact that the petitioner cannot
wriggle out of the position of having terminated the
respondent on grounds of mis-conduct without conducting
any enquiry, I do not find any reason to interference
WP 356/97
- 5 -
with the findings of the Labour Court to the extent of
reinstatement with continuity in service.
8] Shri Shahane, learned Advocate for the
respondent, has strenuously attempted to support the
impugned order to the extent of grant of full back wages.
Shri Natu submits that there was no evidence before the
Labour Court with regard to unemployment of the
respondent. He submits on instructions that the
respondent had entered politics after his termination and
was also elected as the Sarpanch of a village.
9] Be that as it may, the learned Apex Court in the
case of Nicholas Piramal India Limited v/s Hari Singh,
(2015 II CLR 468) has concluded that 50% wages in order
to reduce the hardship of an employee would be a
reasonable amount of back wages.
10] So also I find from the impugned award that the
respondent had not put forth any evidence with regard to
his continued unemployment, any attempt to seek
employment and failure to seek alternate employment
despite best efforts.
11] The back wages of the respondent upon being
calculated by taking into account his last drawn salary
WP 356/97
- 6 -
at the rate of Rs.400/- per month as on 1.7.1982 would be
somewhere around Rs.70,000/- till his reinstatement on
1.7.1998. Nevertheless, his wages must have got
increased in 1990 till he is superannuated on 16.4.1999.
His last drawn wages at the rate of about Rs.3,000/- per
month indicates the rise in wages.
12] In the light of the above, I am inclined to
grant the respondent an amount of Rs.75,000/- towards 50%
back wages and unpaid wages. Since gratuity has not been
paid to him, considering his last drawn wages at the rate
of Rs.3,000/- p.m., his gratuity for the period of 30
years from 1.11.1969 to 16.4.1999 would be about
Rs.52,000/-. As such, I find that a total compensation
package towards 50% back wages, unpaid wages and
gratuity, of an amount of Rs.1,30,000/- would be
reasonable.
13] In the light of the above, this petition is
disposed of with a direction to the petitioner to pay an
amount of Rs.1,30,000/- to the respondent within a period
of eight weeks from today, failing which, the said amount
shall carry simple interest at the rate of 3% from the
date of his superannuation, which is 16.5.1999 till
WP 356/97
- 7 -
actual payment.
14] The petition is partly allowed. Rule is made
partly absolute in the above terms. No order as to
costs.
(RAVINDRA V. GHUGE, J.)
ndk/c331610.doc
