Bombay High Court
Shrirampur Taluka Kapus Utpadak ... vs Nisar Sajan Patel And Others on 9 March, 2016
Bench: R.V. Ghuge
WP/9556/2014
1
IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE OF BOMBAY
BENCH AT AURANGABAD
WRIT PETITION NO. 9556 OF 2014
Shrirampur Taluka Kapus Utpadak
Sahakari Sutgirni Maryadit,
Shrirampur, Tq. Shrirampur,
Ahmednagar, through its
Liquidator / Collector, Ahmednagar. ..Petitioner
Versus
1. Nisar Sajan Patel,
Age major, Occ. Agriculture,
R/o Fatyabag, Tq. Shrirampur,
District Ahmednagar.
2. The Assistant Commissioner
of Labour, Ahmednagar.
3. Tahsildar and Taluka
Executive Magistrate,
Shrirampur, Dist. Ahmednagar. ..Respondents
...
Advocate for Petitioner : Shri Suryawanshi Nitin B.
Advocate for Respondent 1 : Shri Barde Parag Vijay
AGP for Respondents 2 & 3 : Shri Korde D.R.
...
CORAM : RAVINDRA V. GHUGE, J.
Dated: March 09, 2016
...
ORAL JUDGMENT :-
1. Heard.
2. Rule.
3. By consent, Rule is made returnable forthwith and the petition is
taken up for final disposal.
WP/9556/2014
4. The petitioner is aggrieved by the impugned order dated
7.10.2013, which is a Revenue Recovery Certificate ("RRC") issued by the
Assistant Commissioner of Labour, Ahmednagar in the light of the
judgment of the Labour Court dated 31.10.2006 under Section 33-C(2) of
the Industrial Disputes Act, 1947.
5. Shri Suryawanshi, learned Advocate for the petitioner has severely
criticized the impugned certificate on the ground that though
respondent 1 employee could be treated to be on duty, pursuant to the
judgment of the Labour Court dated 31.10.2006 in Complaint (ULP)
NO.69 of 1990, he would, at the most, be presumed to be in employment
along with similarly situated employees only till 26.3.1994, when the
petitioner society went into liquidation and thereafter, there was no
business activity.
6. He submits that the termination of respondent No.1, w.e.f.
27.3.1990 has been set aside by the Labour Court and he has been
granted reinstatement with continuity of service and 50% backwages.
The society upon getting into liquidation, discharged all the employees
w.e.f. 23.6.1994. Consequentially, all the concerned employees were
paid their discharge compensation. Even if respondent No.1 employee is
presumed to be in employment by virtue of the judgment of the Labour
Court, he would have also been discharged on 23.6.1994.
7. He further submits that the failure of the petitioner to challenge
WP/9556/2014
the judgment of the Labour Court dated 31.10.2006 would not mean that
respondent No.1 employee would continue in employment when all
other employees have been discharged from 23.6.1994. He, therefore,
submits that the backwages were calculated by the petitioner upto
23.6.1994 and the same have been paid to the said employee. There is
no dispute about the amount of Rs. 52,783/- having been paid to him.
8. He submits that the impugned certificate has been mechanically
issued by the competent authority without taking into consideration the
fact that the petitioner has gone into liquidation and hence the recovery
of dues, if payable by the petitioner to respondent No.1 would be
restricted to the date 23.6.1994 on which, all employees were
discharged. He, therefore, prays for setting aside the impugned
recovery certificate.
9. Shri Barde, learned Advocate vehemently submits that neither has
the petitioner challenged the judgment of the Labour Court dated
31.10.2006, nor has it challenged the judgment delivered in Application
(IDA) No.23 of 2013. He, therefore, submits that the petitioner is
precluded from questioning the recovery certificate.
10. In the alternative, he submits if all other employees were
discharged on 23.6.1994, the petitioner would be required to pay bonus
for an amount of Rs.57,800/-, gratuity of Rs. 33346/- and earned leave
wages of about Rs.8,000/-. Respondent No.1 employee is litigating for
WP/9556/2014
the past about 20 years. Discharge compensation would have been
payable in 1994. Had this aspect been brought to the notice of the
Labour Court, further litigation and the sufferings of respondent No.1
could have been avoided. He, therefore, prays that this petition be
dismissed with costs.
11. I have considered the submissions of the learned Advocates.
12.
The learned Division Bench of this Court has passed an order on
26.6.2014 in the petition filed by respondent No.1 employee that after
the recovery certificates are issued, the concerned authorities would
take steps for recovering the said amount.
13. The fact, however, remains that the employees similarly situated
as like respondent No.1 have been discharged from employment and
have collected their discharge compensation in 1994. The impugned
certificate has been issued in the light of the claim made by the
employee till 2013. Had he been in employment and even going by the
judgment of the Labour Court, if it is presumed that he is in
employment, he would have been discharged from service as like the
other employees on 23.6.1994. The calculation of all dues payable by
the petitioner to respondent No.1 would, therefore, have to be
restricted to the date on which all other employees were discharged and
which is said to be 23.6.1994.
WP/9556/2014
14. If the unpaid amounts of bonus, gratuity and earned leave wages
till June 1994 are taken into account, the petitioner would have to pay
Rs.1,00,000/- to the employee. Said amount has already been deposited
in this Court by the petitioner pursuant to the order dated 3.11.2014
passed by this Court. Simple interest to be paid on the said amount will
also have to be quantified considering the fact that respondent No.1
employee has been litigating for the past about 20 years.
15.
Taking into account the above facts of the case, the impugned
certificate dated 7.10.2013 is modified with the direction to the
petitioner to pay an amount of Rs.1,25,000/- to the respondent No.1
employee. Consequentially, respondent No.1 would be at liberty to
withdraw the amount of Rs.1,00,000/- with accrued interest from this
Court. In addition thereto, the petitioner shall pay an amount of
Rs.25,000/- to respondent No.1, within a period of six weeks from today.
16. This petition is, therefore, partly allowed by modifying the
impugned Revenue Recovery Certificate as above and the Rule is made
partly absolute, accordingly. No order as to costs.
( RAVINDRA V. GHUGE, J. )
...
akl/d
