Bombay High Court
Vice Chancellor Mahatma Phule ... vs Sarjerao Mahadeo Bhalerao on 30 November, 2016
Bench: R.V. Ghuge
*1* 908.909.910.wp.11525.528.529.16.con
IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY
BENCH AT AURANGABAD
WRIT PETITION NO. 11525 OF 2016
Vice Chancellor,
Mahatma Phule Krishi Vidyapeeth,
Rahuri, Taluka Rahuri,
District Ahmednagar.
...PETITIONER
-VERSUS-
Dadaji Tanaji Sonawane,
Age : 58 years, Occupation : Labour,
R/o 60, Vidyapeeth Quarters,
Taluka Rahuri,
District Ahmednagar.
...RESPONDENT
WITH
WRIT PETITION NO. 11528 OF 2016
Vice Chancellor,
Mahatma Phule Krishi Vidyapeeth,
Rahuri, Taluka Rahuri,
District Ahmednagar.
...PETITIONER
-VERSUS-
Sarjerao Mahadeo Bhalerao,
Age : 59 years, Occupation : Labour,
R/o Digras, Taluka Rahuri,
District Ahmednagar.
...RESPONDENT
WITH
WRIT PETITION NO. 11529 OF 2016
::: Uploaded on - 06/12/2016 ::: Downloaded on - 07/12/2016 00:17:48 :::
*2* 908.909.910.wp.11525.528.529.16.con
Vice Chancellor,
Mahatma Phule Krishi Vidyapeeth,
Rahuri, Taluka Rahuri,
District Ahmednagar.
...PETITIONER
-VERSUS-
Arun Rambhau Phatak,
Age : 52 years, Occupation : Labour,
R/o At Post Sade, Taluka Rahuri,
District Ahmednagar.
...RESPONDENT
ig ...
Advocate for Petitioner : Shri Navandar Manish N.
Advocate for Respondents : Shri Barde Parag Vijay.
...
CORAM: RAVINDRA V. GHUGE, J.
DATE :- 30th November, 2016
Oral Judgment :
1 Rule. Rule made returnable forthwith and heard finally by the
consent of the parties.
2 The Petitioner/ University is aggrieved by the impugned
judgments and awards dated 22.03.2016 delivered by the Labour Court,
Ahmednagar in Reference (IDA) Nos.31, 30 and 32 of 2009 by which the
references have been partly allowed and quantified compensation has
been granted to the Respondents/ Employees in lieu of reinstatement,
continuity and full back wages.
*3* 908.909.910.wp.11525.528.529.16.con
3 The Petitioner/ University claims to have appointed these
Respondents under the emergency powers of the Vice Chancellor. I have
been shown a copy of the appointment order of one of the Respondents
dated 14.12.2004 by Shri Barde, learned Advocate for the Respondents/
Employees which would indicate that the Vice Chancellor of the
Petitioner / University appears to have exercised his emergency powers
and therefore, the Registrar of the University has appointed each of these
Respondents from a particular category and on a particular scale which is
Rs.2610-60-2910-65-3300-70-4000/- along with allowances as may be
introduced by the University.
4 Shri Navandar, learned Advocate for the Petitioner/
University, therefore, strenuously submits while criticizing the impugned
awards that the Respondents were appointed on 11 months tenure and
after 11 months were over, they were liable to be terminated or granted
an extension. They have no right to claim continued employment and no
right was created in favour of the Respondents by which they could claim
to be regular employees of the Petitioner/ University. He, therefore,
submits that the Labour Court has lost sight of these facts and the
appointment orders issued to these Respondents were not considered in
proper perspective by the Labour Court.
*4* 908.909.910.wp.11525.528.529.16.con
5 He then draws my attention to the four grounds for challenge
set out in the petitions to support his contention that as the Respondents
have worked for a short duration and as they have failed to indicate that
they were not gainfully employed, the compensation could not have been
granted by the Labour Court. He further submits that unless the
Respondents were held to be entitled for reinstatement, the compensation
could not have been granted. He, therefore, prays that these petitions be
allowed and the impugned awards be quashed and set aside.
6 Shri Barde submits that considering the appointment orders,
the Petitioner was obliged to indicate as to what was the urgency in
appointing these Respondents. All the Respondents were erstwhile
employees of the Petitioner University, who had worked for one or two
decades and retrenched on 01.04.2001 in the mass retrenchment. The
Vice Chancellor was obliged to indicate as regards the urgency and
exercise of his emergency powers. This aspect of the case has not been
canvassed nor proved by the Petitioner.
7 Shri Barde further submits that there was an advertisement
by which applications were called only from the retrenched employees. A
proper selection committee conducted interviews of these Respondents
*5* 908.909.910.wp.11525.528.529.16.con
and thereafter, they were appointed. Neither the advertisement mentions
that the appointment is temporary nor does it mention 11 months tenure.
8 He further submits that these Respondents were earlier
involved in litigation with the Petitioner considering their earlier
retrenchment dated 01.04.2001 which reached the Honourable Apex
Court. The reference cases were initiated by these Respondents within
three years. Though they were entitled for reinstatement, the Labour
Court has granted compensation. The Respondents have accepted the said
awards and have not challenged the same.
9 I have considered the submissions of the learned Advocates
for the respective sides.
10 Though I quite see in the specimen appointment order, that I
am shown and which is said to be identical in relation to all these
Respondents who are identically placed, that the Vice Chancellor has
exercised his emergency powers, neither do I find any material in the
appointment order nor has the University led any oral or documentary
evidence before the Labour Court to indicate the reasons and
circumstances for justifying exercising the emergency powers. In this
backdrop I find that emergency powers exercised by the Vice Chancellor
*6* 908.909.910.wp.11525.528.529.16.con
were inappropriate and unwarranted.
11 The appointment order also indicates that, as one employee
was moved out of a particular posting and consequent to which, the said
permanent post had fallen vacant, which is admitted by the Petitioner, the
Petitioner/ University decided to fill in the said posts by publishing an
advertisement. There is nothing on record to indicate that an
advertisement mentioned that the said appointment was being made only
for 11 months and on temporary basis. If the posts had fallen vacant, the
University should have proceeded to fill in the posts by regular
appointments. Failure to mention in the advertisement that the posts were
being filled in temporarily, has created a picture in the minds of those
retrenched employees, who were called upon to apply pursuant to the said
advertisement, that the said posts are vacant and permanent.
12 It has also come on record that the selection committee
interviewed the Respondents and they were appointed. The terms and
conditions of the appointment order indicate that the appointment of
these Respondents was to continue till regular candidates are appointed
on permanent vacant posts. It is informed by the Respondents and which
is not disputed by the Petitioner that such regular appointment was made
in the year 2012 considering the pending litigation and though the
*7* 908.909.910.wp.11525.528.529.16.con
Respondents applied for appointments, the Petitioner University has
rejected their candidatures on the ground that they were now age bar.
13 If these three posts were not filled in for about 08 years, it
clearly indicates that there were no circumstances or reasons for the Vice
Chancellor to exercise emergency powers. It also indicates that pursuant
to the advertisement published and the appointment of these
Respondents, the said appointments could have been on regular basis. It
is, therefore, apparent that for reasons best known to the University
officials, though these Respondents were selected by following a selection
process, they were handed over appointment orders mentioning that they
would be temporaries until further orders.
14 In the peculiar facts as recorded above, these Respondents
were inducted in employment. Their removal from service is equally
surprising as they have been orally removed from service. I have scanned
the petition paper books as well as the impugned awards to find out
whether, it is the case of the Petitioner/ University that regularly selected
candidates were appointed and hence, these Respondents were
terminated. I do not find any such material either in the petition paper
books or in the impugned awards. It also does not appear to be the case of
the University before this Court that since properly selected candidates
*8* 908.909.910.wp.11525.528.529.16.con
were available for filling in the permanent vacant posts, the Respondents
were terminated.
15 Be that as it may, the Labour Court has granted compensation
to these three Respondents. They have not chosen to challenge the said
awards by which they have been deprived of reinstatement.
16 In the above backdrop, the reference to the following four
judgments of the Honourable Supreme Court would be appropriate:-
(a) Assistant Engineer, Rajasthan State Agriculture Marketing
Board, Sub-Division, Kota Vs. Mohanlal, [2013 LLR 1009];
(b) Assistant Engineer, Rajasthan Development Corporation and
another Vs. Gitam Singh, [(2013) 5 SCC 136];
(c) BSNL Vs. Man Singh, [(2012) 1 SCC 558]; and
(d) Jagbir Singh Vs. Haryana State Agriculture Marketing Board,
[(2009) 15 SCC 327].
17 No doubt, the view taken by the Honourable Supreme Court
in the above four cases is that when the employees are engaged for a short
duration and are out of employment for a longer duration, the
compensation of Rs.30,000/- per year of service put in by the employees
*9* 908.909.910.wp.11525.528.529.16.con
should be granted. Shri Barde has placed reliance upon the following
judgments of the Honourable Supreme Court:-
(a) General Secretary, Coal Washeries Workers Union, Dhanbad vs.
Employers in relation to the Management of Dugda Washery of
M/s BCCL, AIR 2016 SC 4441.
(b) Bhavnagar Municipal Corporation vs. Jadeja Govubha
Chhanubha, AIR 2015 SC 609.
(c) Tapash Kumar Paul vs. BSNL, AIR 2015 SC 357.
to support his contention that the latest view of the
Honourable Supreme Court appears to be that the compensation of higher
amounts in such cases needs to be granted.
18 In the Coal Washeries Workers Union case (supra), the
employees had worked for about four years and were also granted
benefits of Section 17-B of the Industrial Disputes Act, 1947. In the
Bhavnagar Municipal Corporation case (supra), the worker had worked
for 18 months and was granted Rs.2.50 lac as compensation since he has
litigated right upto the Honourable Supreme Court. In Tapash Kumar Paul
case (supra), though the duration of work put in is not found, the
Honourable Apex Court, while dealing with the relief of compensation in
lieu of reinstatement in service, has set out the parameters which are to be
*10* 908.909.910.wp.11525.528.529.16.con
considered while granting the compensation.
19 As such, even if it is presumed that the compensation
awarded by the Honourable Apex Court in 2016 has been raised to about
Rs.50,000/- per year of service, all three Respondents have put in two
years in service. Two Respondents have attained the age of
superannuation. In my view, the compensation of Rs.1 lac would be
appropriate to each of them in the first two cases. In the third case, the
Respondent had about 9 to 10 years left for attaining the age of
superannuation. In his case, an amount of Rs.1.25 lac would be an
appropriate compensation.
20 In the light of the above, these Writ Petitions are partly
allowed only to the extent of modifying the compensation amounts. The
Petitioner/ University shall pay the compensation of Rs.1 lac each to the
two Respondents in the first two cases, namely, Dadaji Tanaji Sonawane
and Sarjerao Mahadeo Bhalerao. The Petitioner shall pay an amount of
Rs.1.25 lac to the third employee, namely, Arun Rambhau Phatak.
21 These amounts shall be paid within THREE MONTHS from
today, failing which the Registrar of the Petitioner/ University shall pay
the amount of interest at the rate of 5% per annum on the said amounts
*11* 908.909.910.wp.11525.528.529.16.con
from the date of the awards of the Labour Court till actual payment, from
his personal salary and the said amount of interest shall not be paid either
from the State Exchequer or from the University funds.
22 Rule is made partly absolute in the above terms.
kps (RAVINDRA V. GHUGE, J.)
