Bombay High Court
M.S.E.B. Through Executive ... vs Bhau Nagorao Jogdand on 4 March, 2016
Bench: R.V. Ghuge
WP/3858/2001+
1
IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE OF BOMBAY
BENCH AT AURANGABAD
WRIT PETITION NO. 3858 OF 2001
1. Maharashtra State Electricity
Dist. Co. Ltd., through the
Executive Engineer, MSEDCL,
Chapne Building, Anand Nagar,
Osmanabad.
2. Maharashtra State Electricity
Dist. Co. Ltd., through the
Junior Engineer, MSEDCL,
Civil Camp, Girwadi, Tq. Ambajogai,
District Beed. ig ..Petitioners
Versus
Mohan Sidaram Holkar,
Aged major, Occ. Labour,
R/o Jawalgaon, Tq. Ambajogai,
District Beed. ..Respondent
WITH
WRIT PETITION NO. 3903 OF 2001
1. Maharashtra State Electricity
Dist. Co. Ltd., through the
Executive Engineer, MSEDCL,
Chapne Building, Anand Nagar,
Osmanabad.
2. Maharashtra State Electricity
Dist. Co. Ltd., through the
Junior Engineer, MSEDCL,
Civil Camp, Girwadi, Tq. Ambajogai,
District Beed. ..Petitioners
Versus
Bhau Nagorao Jogdand,
Aged 25 years, Occ. Labour,
R/o Pimpla Dahiguda, Taluka
Ambajogai, District Beed. ..Respondent
...
Advocate for Petitioners : Shri Deshpande Dhananjay P.
Advocate for Respondents : Shri Shahane Parag
h/f Shri Shahane P.L.
::: Uploaded on - 05/03/2016 ::: Downloaded on - 31/07/2016 07:47:16 :::
WP/3858/2001+
2
...
CORAM : RAVINDRA V. GHUGE, J.
Dated: March 04, 2016
...
ORAL JUDGMENT :-
1. Both these petitions have been admitted by this Court on 6.12.2001
and 3.12.2001 respectively. Interim relief was refused to the petitioner /
management.
2.
Shri Deshpande, learned Advocate for the petitioner / management
submits that the judgments of the Labour Court, allowing the Complaints
filed by the respondents / employees, as well as the judgments of the
Industrial Court dismissing the revision petitions filed by the petitioners,
have been challenged in these two petitions.
3. Grievance is that the Labour has erroneously concluded that the
respondents are in continuous employment and have completed 240 days IN
continuous and uninterrupted service of the petitioners. The petitioners
had filed an identical written statement before the Labour Court in these
matters. It was contended that the respondents are not workmen. They
were employed by the petitioners on the job basis to safeguard and
maintain the water supply pipeline of the petitioner establishment.
4. It is further submitted that the respondents were paid their wages on
job work basis. There was a ban on the recruitment of Class III and Class IV
employees form 1983. Regular posts were not available. The petitioners
WP/3858/2001+
stopped allocating work to the respondents since they were engaged
whenever the work was available. Their work is of a casual manner.
5. Shri Deshpande submits that all the contentions of the petitioners
have been negated by the Labour Court, erroneously, and the same error
has been committed by the Industrial Court. He, therefore, vehemently
submits that both the impugned judgments deserve to be quashed and set
aside.
6.
Shri Shahane, learned Advocate appearing on behalf of the
respondents has supported the impugned judgments. Contention is that the
entire oral and documentary evidence placed on record before the Labour
Court has been properly considered. Provisions of the Industrial Disputes
Act have not been complied with by the petitioners. The Labour Court has
adduced reasons in support of its conclusions, which are based upon the
oral and documentary evidence on record.
7. He further submits that the petitioners had taken a stand that there
is a Contractor, who has deployed the respondents and that the respondents
had abandoned their service. These contentions were not proved by the
petitioners before the Labour Court. The impugned judgment of the Labour
Court does not call for an interference. The judgment of the Industrial
Court also deserves to be upheld.
8. I have considered the submissions of the learned Advocates, who
WP/3858/2001+
have taken me through the record available.
9. The petitioners first contention was that a Contractor was appointed.
He had deployed the respondents. Neither was an application made by the
petitioners to add the Contractor as a party, nor did the petitioners produce
the Contractor to adduce oral and documentary evidence.
10. Upon going through the evidence adduced by the parties, it is
apparent that the petitioners failed to establish the existence of a
Contractor as well as that the respondents were deployed by a Contractor.
Merely because a contention is set out in the Written Statement, the same
could not have been accepted without oral and documentary evidence. The
issue of no employer - employee relationship was, therefore, not proved by
the petitioners.
11. The respondents proved before the Labour Court that they were
working continuously. It was also proved that the petitioners had failed in
complying Section 25-F of the Industrial Disputes Act, 1947.
12. In the above backdrop, I do not find that the impugned judgment of
the Labour Court could be termed as being perverse or erroneous or causing
gross injustice to the petitioners.
13. Consequentially, the judgment of the Industrial Court does not call
for any interference.
WP/3858/2001+
14. It is informed that both the respondents have been reinstated in
employment in 1999 and this Court had refused interim relief to the
petitioners, while admitting the petitions.
15. In the light of the above, both these petitions being devoid of merit
are, therefore, dismissed.
16.
Rule, in both the petitions stand discharged.
( RAVINDRA V. GHUGE, J. )
...
akl/d
