Bombay High Court
The State Of Maharashtra & Others vs Gulam Mohammad Nazimoddin Gulam ... on 10 May, 2016
Bench: R.V. Ghuge
WP/3284/1995
1
IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE OF BOMBAY
BENCH AT AURANGABAD
WRIT PETITION NO. 3284 OF 1995
1. The State of Maharashtra,
through Superintending Engineer,
Public Works Circle, Office
Bandkam Bhavan, Aurangabad.
2. Executive Engineer,
Public Works Division,
Padampura, Aurangabad.
3. Deputy Engineer,
Public Works Division (South),
Padampura, Aurangabad. ..Petitioners
Versus
1. Gulam Mohd. Najibuddin
S/o Gulam Mohd. Nizamuddin,
Age 42 years, Occ. Service,
R/o H.No.672, Pensionpura,
Cantonment, Aurangabad.
2. The Learned Member,
Industrial Court, Aurangabad. ..Respondents
...
AGP for Petitioner : Smt. Raut S.S.
Respondents : Served
...
CORAM : RAVINDRA V. GHUGE, J.
Dated: May 10, 2016
...
ORAL JUDGMENT:-
1. This petition filed by the State was admitted on 13.7.1995 and
interim relief was refused.
WP/3284/1995
2. Despite service of Court notice, none have appeared for
respondent No.1 / original complainant. Respondent No.2 is a formal
party.
3. The petitioners have challenged the judgment and order dated
9.12.1994, delivered by the Industrial Court, Aurangabad by which,
Complaint (ULP) No.22 of 1991, filed by the respondent / employee
has been allowed.
4.
The learned AGP, on behalf of the petitioners, has strenuously
criticized the impugned judgment. She has taken me through the
Written Statement that was filed on 29.7.1992 in the Complaint,
which was filed by the respondent / employee seeking benefits under
the Kalelkar Settlement. She has pointed out the grounds for
challenge set out in the petition and has strenuously canvassed that
the impugned judgment is perverse and erroneous.
5. Learned AGP has relied upon the original service book of the
respondent. It is submitted that the respondent has attained the age
of superannuation on 31.12.2007.
6. I have considered the submissions of the learned AGP and have
gone through the grounds set out in the appeal as well as the
contentions put forth by the petitioners in their Written Statement
WP/3284/1995
before the Industrial Court.
7. It cannot be ignored that the petitioners neither cross-
examined the respondent / employee before the Industrial Court nor
did they lead evidence. The Industrial Court has relied upon the
documents produced before it and has considered the testimony of
the respondent, who has proved before the Industrial Court on the
basis of the documentary evidence that he was working as a Clerk in
the Sub-division Office at Sillod. He was never working as a Labourer
or a Majdoor.
8. In addition to the above, it is noteworthy that this Court did
not grant any interim relief to the petitioners and therefore, the
petitioners have implemented the impugned judgment of the
Industrial Court dated 2.12.1994. By it's decision dated 1.2.1996, the
petitioners implemented the impugned judgment and an entry to
that effect has been taken on 4.4.1997 at page No.23 of the original
service book of the employee, which has been shown to the Court.
So also, the respondent / employee has superannuated on
31.12.2007, which is practically nine years ago.
9. In the light of the above, this petition is rendered of an
academic interest. Same is, therefore, disposed off.
WP/3284/1995
10. Rule is discharged.
( RAVINDRA V. GHUGE, J. )
...
akl/d
