State Of Maha & Ors vs Devidas Suka Patil
2016 Latest Caselaw 695 Bom

                                                                         WP/1686/2003/Group
                                                 1

                        IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE OF BOMBAY
                                   BENCH AT AURANGABAD




                                                                                
                                   WRIT PETITION NO. 1686 OF 2003




                                                        
     1. The State of Maharashtra,
     Through the Dy. Director
     Social Forestry, Jalgaon.




                                                       
     2. Plantation Officer,
     Social Forestry,
     Amalner, Dist. Jalgaon.                                      ..Petitioners

     Versus




                                            
     Bharat Vedu Patil,      
     Age major, R/o Kawpimpri,
     Tq. Amalner, Dist. Jalgaon.                                  ..Respondent

                                               WITH
                            
                                   WRIT PETITION NO. 1687 OF 2003

     1. The State of Maharashtra,
     Through the Dy. Director
      

     Social Forestry, Jalgaon.

     2. Plantation Officer,
   



     Social Forestry,
     Amalner, Dist. Jalgaon.                                      ..Petitioners

     Versus





     Sambhaji Shantaram Patil,
     R/o At Post Dheku (Kh.)
     Tq. Amalner, Dist. Jalgaon.                                  ..Respondent

                                               WITH





                                   WRIT PETITION NO. 1688 OF 2003

     1. The State of Maharashtra,
     Through the Dy. Director
     Social Forestry, Jalgaon.

     2. Plantation Officer,
     Social Forestry,
     Amalner, Dist. Jalgaon.                                      ..Petitioners

     Versus




    ::: Uploaded on - 21/03/2016                        ::: Downloaded on - 31/07/2016 09:23:02 :::
                                                                          WP/1686/2003/Group
                                                 2

     Prabhakar Nafar Patil,
     R/o At Post Dheku (Kh.)




                                                                                
     Tq. Amalner, Dist. Jalgaon.                                  ..Respondent




                                                        
                                               WITH
                                   WRIT PETITION NO. 1689 OF 2003

     1. The State of Maharashtra,
     Through the Dy. Director




                                                       
     Social Forestry, Jalgaon.

     2. Plantation Officer,
     Social Forestry,
     Amalner, Dist. Jalgaon.                                      ..Petitioners




                                            
     Versus                  
     Devidas Suka Patil,
     Age major, Occ. Nil,
     At Mudi, Tq. Amalner,
                            
     Dist. Jalgaon.                                               ..Respondent

                                               ...
                               AGP for Petitioner : Smt. S.S.Raut
      

                           Advocate for Respondents : Shri A.R.Shelke
                                               ...
   



                                   CORAM : RAVINDRA V. GHUGE, J.

Dated: March 17, 2016 ...

ORAL JUDGMENT:-

1. This Court has admitted all these matters, filed by the State,

challenging the judgment and order of the Industrial Court, dated 1.3.2003

thereby allowing the ULP Complaints. Interim relief was refused by this

Court. Consequentially, an amount of Rs. 1,94,187/- was deposited by the

petitioners in this Court on 30.4.2004.

2. In serial order of these petitions, amounts of Rs. 55447, Rs. 55036,

Rs. 23722 and Rs. 57982 are to be apportioned in each of these petitions.

WP/1686/2003/Group

3. Since the petitioner is the same establishment and the respondents

are identically situated, I have taken up these petitions for hearing by the

consent of the parties today.

4. The learned AGP on behalf of the petitioner / establishment has

strenuously criticized the impugned judgment of the Industrial Court.

Contention is that the respondent had erroneously averred that they were

appointed as Forest Watchmen, that they had rendered continuous service

from 1989, that they were not paid minimum wages and that they were

entitled for regularization. The petitioner had specifically brought it to the

notice of the Industrial Court through its Written Statements that the

respondents were appointed on ad-hoc basis on various schemes. Such

schemes were termed as the Plantation Schemes. Their temporary

engagements came to an end after the completion of the Scheme. None of

them had completed 240 days in the continuous and uninterrupted service

of the petitioner.

5. It is further submitted that the employees like the respondents were

engaged on Employment Guarantee Scheme ("EGS") and as such could not

have raised the claim under the Maharashtra Recognition of Trade Unions

and Prevention of Unfair Labour Practices Act, 1971 ("the Act of 1971").

The learned AGP submits that the impugned judgment deserves to be

quashed and set aside and all these petitions deserve to be allowed.

WP/1686/2003/Group

6. Shri Shelke, learned Advocate on behalf of the respondents submits

that the judgment of the Industrial Court would clearly indicate that there

was no evidence put forth by the petitioner to establish that they were

appointed on the EGS and were working exclusively on EGS. The Industrial

Court has considered the oral evidence at Exhibit U/8. Besides mere

pleadings by the petitioner, no evidence was placed on record to support its

contention. No documentary evidence was produced to indicate that the

minimum rates of wages were being paid to the respondents.

7.

He further submits that in the absence of any documentary evidence,

the petitioners could not establish their case and as such the complaints

filed by the respondents were rightly allowed.

8. He further submits that during the pendency of the complaints, three

respondents were intentionally terminated from service on 31.3.1999 and

one employee, namely, Prabhakar Patil was terminated on 27.11.1997.

Barring Shri Patil, the other three respondents have not challenged their

termination. Nevertheless, ever since their termination, the respondents

have not been in employment.

9. Shri Shelke further states that the Industrial Court, considered the

complaints as regards the claim for regularization only upto the dates of

termination of the respondents. It, therefore, did not grant regularization

to the respondents but has rightly directed the petitioner to pay difference

of wages and retrenchment benefits going by the dates of termination of

WP/1686/2003/Group

the respondents. He, therefore, prays for the dismissal of these petitions.

10. I have considered the submissions of the learned Advocates as have

been recorded herein above and have gone through the available record

with their assistance.

11. The Industrial Court, in my view, has rightly considered the

complaints by restricting the cause of action upto the dates of termination

of the respondents. It has rightly not gone into the legality and the validity

of the orders of termination since it was beyond the scope of its powers. It

is trite law that Section 32 of the Act of 1971, though gives a power to the

Labour and Industrial Court to decide incidental issues in relation to a

complaint, the said powers cannot be enlarged so as to adjudicate upon

cause of action which it could not have otherwise dealt with under the

inherent powers as provided under the Act of 1971.

12. In so far as the contention of the petitioner that the respondents

were working on EGS is concerned, no record was produced before the

Industrial Court by the petitioner. Under the EGS, registers are to be

maintained, receipts of payments are to be preserved and individual cards

are to be allotted to each of the employees. In the absence of such

documents, the Industrial Court could not have believed the bald statement

made by the petitioner in the Written Statement. I, therefore, do not find

any reason to interfere with the conclusion of the Industrial Court that the

complaints were maintainable.

WP/1686/2003/Group

13. The respondents had prayed for regularization. The Industrial Court

has granted difference in wages till their date of termination. None of the

respondents have challenged the judgment of the Industrial Court by filing

Writ Petitions. It, therefore, has to be presumed that the respondents have

accepted the impugned judgment of the Industrial Court.

14. With regard to the claim for difference in wages, the Industrial Court

has considered the evidence adduced. It was noted that paltry amounts

were being paid to these respondents. The Industrial Court has, therefore,

rightly considered the grievance of the respondents and has directed the

payment of difference in wages. I do not find any error having been

committed by the Industrial Court in directing the petitioner to pay the

difference in wages.

15. Under the orders of this Court, the amounts as recorded above have

been deposited by the petitioner. Same are towards the difference in

wages. One of the respondents, namely, Devidas Suka Patil in Writ

Petition No. 1689 of 2003 has withdrawn the amount by the order of this

Court dated 21.12.2004. Rest of the respondents have not been able to

tender solvent surety and hence have not withdrawn the said amounts.

16. In the light of the above, these petitions are dismissed for being

devoid of merits. Rule is discharged.

WP/1686/2003/Group

17. The condition for withdrawal of amounts, imposed by this Court, by

order dated 21.12.2004 stands recalled and the respondents who have not

withdrawn their amounts, are, therefore, at liberty to withdraw the said

amounts along with the accrued interest by tendering tangible proof of

their identity in the form of Voters' I.D.Card and/or Aadhar Card and upon

being duly identified by the learned Advocate for the respondents.

18. So also, the petitioner - Devidas Suka Patil in Writ Petition No. 1689

of 2003 shall stand released from the solvent surety forthwith.

19. Pending Civil Applications therefore, do not survive and accordingly,

stand disposed off.

( RAVINDRA V. GHUGE, J. )

...

akl/d