Bombay High Court
Sarpanch, Grampanchayat At ... vs Shri. Rupdas S/O. Narayan Gedam ... on 16 November, 2016
Bench: Prasanna B. Varale
1 WP4575.15.odt
IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY
: NAGPUR BENCH : NAGPUR.
WRIT PETITION NO. 4575 OF 2015
PETITIONER : Sarpanch, Gram Panchayat,
At Aamboli, P.O. Bamni, Tah. Umted,
District Nagpur.
- VERSUS -
RESPONDENTS : 1] Shri Rupdas S/o Narayan Gedam,
ig Aged 44 years, Occu. Presently nil,
R/o Aamboli P.O. Bamni,
Tah. Umred, District Nagpur.
2] Block Development Officer,
P. S. Umred, Dist. Nagpur.
-------------------------------------------------------------
Mr. M. V. Mohokar, Advocate for the petitioner
Mr. J. L. Bhoot, Advocate for the respondent no.1
------------------------------------------------------------
CORAM : PRASANNA B. VARALE, J.
DATE : NOVEMBER 16, 2016.
ORAL JUDGMENT
Rule. Rule made returnable forthwith. Considering the
limited controversy, the petition is heard finally with the consent of the
learned counsel for the parties at the stage of admission itself.
2] The petition challenges the order passed by the learned In-
charge Member, Industrial Court, Nagpur, dated 16.04.2015 in Revision
2 WP4575.15.odt
ULP No.205/2010 thereby dismissing the revision petition filed by the
petitioner - Gram Panchayat i.e. original respondent before the Labour
Court.
3] Brief facts giving rise to the present petition can be
summarized as follows :
The respondent no.1/employee had approached the Labour
Court by filing Complaint ULP No. 32/2008 against the petitioner-Gram
Panchayat and respondent no.2 - Block Development Officer, Umred,
herein. It was the submission of the respondent/complainant that he
was appointed in the petitioner-Gram Panchayat, Aamboli in the
capacity of Peon in the year 1997 and was working till 2006. It was the
further submission before the Labour Court that the services of the
respondent/complainant were terminated on 19.10.2006 by an order of
the respondent no.2- Block Development Officer, Umred. The sum and
substance of the various grounds raised in the complaint in challenge to
the termination, was without conducting any enquiry against the
respondent/complainant, the termination was effected and as such, the
petitioner-Gram Panchayat was indulged in unfair labour practice.
4] The learned Judge, Labour Court, allowed the complaint by
the judgment and order, dated 07.09.2010 and directed the petitioner-
3 WP4575.15.odt
Gram Panchayat to reinstate the respondent/complainant with
continuity of service and full back-wages. Being aggrieved by the said
judgment and order, the petitioner-Gram Panchayat preferred a revision
petition before the Industrial Court. The learned Member, Industrial
Court, by observing non-appearance of the counsel for the petitioner-
Gram Panchayat and on hearing the learned counsel for the
respondent/employee, dismissed the revision petition by the impugned
order dated 16.04.2015.
5] The submission of Mr. Mohokar, the learned counsel for the
petitioner-Gram Panchayat is, though, the petitioner had raised various
grounds in challenge to the judgment and order passed by the Labour
Court and more particularly the ground that the Labour Court has erred
in observing that the Gram Panchayat is an Industry considering the
judgment of the Hon'ble Apex Court in an erroneous way and the
ground that the respondent/ complainant failed to prove before the
learned Labour Court that he was engaged by the Gram Panchayat or
was duly appointed on the post of Peon. The learned counsel further
submitted that the learned Industrial Court only on hearing the learned
counsel for the respondent-employee, passed the impugned order. He
submitted that before the Labour Court, the petitioner-Gram Panchayat
4 WP4575.15.odt
was represented through the counsel and the same counsel was
appearing before the Industrial Court in the revision petition and during
pendency of the revision, the counsel has expired. The Gram Panchayat
could get the knowledge of death of the counsel only after dismissal of
the revision petition on an enquiry. The learned counsel for the
petitioner submitted that as no proper opportunity of hearing was
granted to the petitioner, there is breach of principle of natural justice
and the same caused prejudice to the petitioner-Gram Panchayat.
6] Per contra, Mr. Bhoot, the learned counsel for the
respondent no.1 vehemently submitted that no error is committed by
the learned Labour Court while allowing the complaint. He submitted
that though, the revision petition was filed before the learned Industrial
Court in 2010 and it was pending for five years, the petitioner-Gram
Panchayat took no steps to prosecute the revision and as such the
learned Industrial Court was left with no choice but to decide the
revision on its merits. The learned counsel further submitted that the
learned Labour Court arrived at a conclusion that the respondent no.1
was employee of the petitioner-Gram Panchayat. He further submitted
that the learned Industrial Court approved of the view that termination
of the respondent-employee without conducting any enquiry was illegal
5 WP4575.15.odt
and the learned Labour Court committed no error in allowing the
complaint and further granting the reliefs in favour of the respondent-
employee of reinstatement with continuity in service and back wages.
7] Insofar as the grounds raised by the petitioner in the
present petition in respect of non-grant of opportunity of hearing is
concerned, the learned counsel for the petitioner-Gram Panchayat
submitted in his submissions that before the learned Labour Court, the
petitioner-Gram Panchayat was being represented through the counsel
and the very counsel was representing the Gram Panchayat before the
learned Industrial Court and during pendency of the revision, the
counsel representing the Gram Panchayat has expired. A statement to
that effect is also made in the petition, which reads thus :
"Advocate namely V.D. Dongare had reported to be dead
during pendency of the revision and petitioner was
deprived of submitting his case."
8] Insofar as the other contentions touching to the merits are
concerned, though, the learned counsel for the respondent-employee
made an attempt to submit before this Court that the respondent-
complainant was appointed as a Peon in the petitioner-Gram Panchayat
and this fact was admitted by the petitioner-Gram Panchayat, perusal of
6 WP4575.15.odt
the material placed before this Court show that in the written
statement, the petitioner-Gram Panchayat specifically denied the stand
of the respondent-employee. On a query made to the learned counsel
for the respondent-employee whether the material in the nature of
appointment order or otherwise was placed before the learned Labour
Court at the instance of the employee, the learned counsel fairly
submitted that no such material was placed. He further submitted that
as the termination order was issued by passing a resolution, this
material substantiated the case of the respondent-employee.
9] In my opinion, it is not necessary for this court to assess
these merits as it was for the appropriate forum i.e. Industrial Court, to
do this exercise when the revision petition was filed challenging the
judgment and order of the learned Labour Court. There is also some
other material and contra material such as, the stand of the petitioner-
Gram Panchayat that the respondent-employee was indulged in criminal
acts and was also served with various notices pointing out dereliction in
duties and also preparing fabricated documents. A contra submission
was made on behalf of the respondent-employee that he was not aware
of lodgment of any criminal report or complaint against him.
7 WP4575.15.odt
10] Be that as it may. Considering the basic ground raised by
the petitioner-Gram Panchayat that it was deprived of opportunity of
hearing before the Industrial Court and on the backdrop of peculiar
circumstances, such as counsel representing the petitioner-Gram
Panchayat expired during pendency of the revision and the petitioner-
Gram Panchayat was not aware of this fact, Mr. Mohokar, the learned
counsel was justified in submitting that if an opportunity could have
been granted to the petitioner-Gram Panchayat of hearing through its
counsel, the counsel could have made an attempt to convince the Court
or would have submitted the proper legal position before the Industrial
Court reflected through the judgments of the Hon'ble Apex Court, which
ware relied on. It was the submission of Mr. Mohokar, the learned
counsel that the learned Industrial Court while relying on the judgment
of the Hon'ble Apex Court in the case of Bangalore Water Supply and
Sewerage Board .vs. Rajappa and others (1978 I LLJ 349), failed to
appreciate that a triple test laid down by the Hon'ble Apex Court was
not complied with so as to hold the petitioner-Gram Panchayat as an
Industry and for non-appearance of the counsel that too for the reason
which was beyond the comprehension of the petitioner-Gram
Panchayat, it may not be put to a prejudice.
8 WP4575.15.odt
11] Considering the material placed on record and more
particularly the statement made in the petition, I find considerable
merit in the submissions of the learned counsel for the petitioner-Gram
Panchayat. In my opinion, the ends of justice would be met by setting
aside the impugned judgment and order passed by the Industrial Court
and remitting the matter back to the Industrial Court with a direction to
decide the revision petition afresh by giving an opportunity of hearing
to the petitioner-Gram Panchayat. Both the learned counsel for the
parties submit that the parties would appear before the learned
Industrial Court on 01.12.2016.
12] The learned counsel for the petitioner-Gram Panchayat
submits that the interim order was passed by this court on 23.02.2016
and the same be continued till the revision is decided afresh in view of
the orders of this Court. The learned counsel for the respondent-
employee submits that the respondent, who is fighting the litigation
from 2008 and though was successful before the learned Labour Court,
in view of the revision petition preferred by the petitioner-Gram
Panchayat and the interim orders of this Court, he is facing financial
hardship. He further submits that as there is no financial source
available to the respondent-employee, it is very difficult for him to
9 WP4575.15.odt
contest the revision petition. The learned counsel for the respondent
therefore, prayed for imposing some condition on the petitioner-Gram
Panchayat. Considering the peculiar aspects and considering the fact
that the petitioner-Gram Panchayat is of a small village having limited
source of revenue, the petitioner-Gram Panchayat can be directed to
pay the compensation of Rs.10,000/- to the respondent-employee.
13]
In the result, the writ petition is allowed.
(i) The impugned judgment and order, dated
16.04.2015 passed by the learned Industrial Court, Nagpur, in Revision
(ULP) No. 205/2010 is quashed and set aside.
(ii) The matter is remanded back to the learned
Industrial Court, Nagpur for deciding afresh by giving opportunity of
hearing to the parties. As the revision petition is of the year 2010, the
exercise of deciding the matter afresh is to be undertaken by the
Industrial Court as expeditiously as possible and preferably within eight
weeks from the date of appearance of the parties before it.
(iii) The parties are directed to appear before the learned
Industrial Court, Nagpur on 01.12.2016.
(iv) The petitioner-Gram Panchayat is directed to pay
Rs.10,000/- to the respondent no.1 as a compensation within three
weeks from today.
10 WP4575.15.odt
(v) The interim order dated 23.02.2016 passed by this
Court shall continue to operate till decision of the revision petition
afresh as directed by this Court.
(vi) Needless to state that the learned Industrial Court,
Nagpur to decide the revision petition on its own merits by giving equal
opportunity of hearing to the parties.
Rule is made absolute in the aforesaid terms. The writ
petition is disposed of. No order as to costs.
JUDGE
Diwale
