Bombay High Court
The State Of Maharashtra & Othes vs Bapu Kadu Kute on 24 November, 2016
Bench: R.V. Ghuge
1
IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE OF BOMBAY
BENCH AT AURANGABAD
WRIT PETITION NO.1127 OF 1997
1. The State of Maharashtra,
2. The Executive Engineer,
P.W.D., Ahmednagar,
Dist.Ahmednagar -- PETITIONER
VERSUS
Bapu S/o Kadu Kute,
At Post : Handi Nimgaon,
Tq.Newasa, Dist.Ahmednagar -- RESPONDENT
Mr.S.N.Kendre, AGP for the petitioner.
Mr.V.N.Upadhye, Advocate for the respondent.
( CORAM : RAVINDRA V. GHUGE, J.)
DATE : 24/11/2016
ORAL JUDGMENT :
1. The petitioner is aggrieved by the judgment and award dated
29/08/1996 by which Ref.(IDA) No.130/1992 filed by the
respondent / employee has been partly allowed and he has been
granted reinstatement with continuity of service without back wages.
This court, while admitting the petition on 27/03/1997, did not grant
any interim relief to the petitioners.
2. It is informed that neither has the respondent been reinstated
khs/NOV.2016/1127-d
nor has he been paid monthly wages, in as much as, the respondent
has not moved an application u/s 17-B of the I.D.Act, 1947 for
seeking last drawn wages during the pendency of this petition.
3. I have heard the submissions of the learned Advocates.
Mr.Upadhye strenuously submits that the respondent had made
specific contentions of violation of Section 25-F, 25-G and 25-H of the
I.D.Act, 1947 which read as under :-
(I will add it lateron)
4. He then submits that he is working as a Class IV daily wager
as a "Mile Kamgar" It is given to understand that this Mile Kamgar is
that person who is deployed by the PWD for the cleaning of the roads
or allied work. Mr.Upadhye submits that though he had worked in
between 9/8/1985 to 15/02/1987, he proved before the Labour Court
that he had worked for 159 days. By addition of 52 weekly holidays
and other National holidays, the Labour Court concluded that, "the
second party is on the verge of completing 240 days".
5. I find that the calculation of completion of 240 days is to be
done with reference to 12 calendar months preceding the date of
reference. The Labour Court has concluded that by adding the 52
khs/NOV.2016/1127-d
weekly holidays and the national holidays, the respondent did not
complete 240 days and is not entitled to any relief.
6. However, I find that the Labour Court granted the relief of
reinstatement with continuity of service from 15/02/1987 on the
ground that similar co-workers were retained in service. It is on
these premises that Mr.Upadhye submits that the respondent proved
violation of section 25-G.
7. It cannot be ignored that the respondent/second party
workman has worked in between August 1985 to 15/02/1987 over a
period of about 16 months and is out of employment for the last 29
years. He has raised an industrial dispute in 1992 after 5 years of
his disengagement. During the pendency of this petition, neither
has the petitioner reinstated the respondent, nor has the respondent
initiated steps for seeking employment with the petitioner.
8. In this backdrop, I find that the ends of justice would be met by
modifying the impugned award and by granting compensation to the
respondent in the light of the following 4 judgments of the Hon'ble
Supreme Court :-
1. Assistant Engineer, Rajasthan State Agriculture Marketing
khs/NOV.2016/1127-d
Board, Sub Division, Kota Vs. Mohanlal, 2013 LLR 1009,
2. Assistant Engineer, Rajasthan Development Corporation and
another Vs. Gitam Singh, (2013) 5 SCC 136,
3. BSNL Vs. Man Singh, (2012) 1 SCC 558,
4. Jagbir Singh Vs. Haryana State Agriculture Marketing Board,
(2009) 15 SCC 327.
9. The Hon'ble Apex Court in the above said 4 judgments has held
that where an employee has worked for a short period and it is
followed by a long duration of unemployment, an order of
reinstatement with continuity would be inappropriate and
impracticable. The Hon'ble Apex Court has held that in such
circumstances, an amount of Rs.30,000/- per year of service put in
by the employee would be sufficient compensation. Therefore,
though this compensation would amount to about Rs.45,000/-, I am
granting Rs.75,000/- to the respondent since he has been kept out of
employment from 1996 till this date despite the petitioner having not
being granted interim relief in this matter.
10. As such, this petition is partly allowed. The impugned award
dated 29/08/1996 stands modified and replaced by the direction to
the petitioner to pay compensation of Rs.75,000/- to the respondent
within a period of 12 weeks from today, failing which the respondent
khs/NOV.2016/1127-d
would be entitled to interest @ 3% from Sept.1996. It be noted that if
on account of the delay in payment, interest is liable to be paid as
directed, said amount of interest shall be recovered from the salary of
the Executive Engineer, PWD Division Ahmednagar, Sub-Division
Newasa and the said amount of interest shall not be paid through the
State exchequer.
11.
Rule is made partly absolute in the above terms.
( RAVINDRA V. GHUGE, J.)
khs/NOV.2016/1127-d
