Bombay High Court
Municipal Council Osmanabad vs General Secretary Marathwada Lal ... on 1 October, 2016
Bench: R.V. Ghuge
WP/2038/2008
1
IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE OF BOMBAY
BENCH AT AURANGABAD
WRIT PETITION NO. 2038 OF 2008
Municipal Council, Osmanabad
Taluka and Dist. Osmanabad,
through the Chief Officer. ..Petitioner
Versus
General Secretary,
Marathwada Lal Bawata Labour
Union, Trade Union Office,
Jalkot Road, Udgir, Dist. Latur. ..Respondent
ig ...
Advocate for Petitioner : Shri R V Naiknaware
Advocate for Respondent : Shri B B Yenge
...
CORAM : RAVINDRA V. GHUGE, J.
Dated: October 01, 2016
...
ORAL JUDGMENT:-
1. The petitioner / Municipal Council is aggrieved by the
judgment and order dated 23.1.2008, delivered by the Industrial
Court, Latur in Complaint (ULP) No.312 of 2004 (Old No.43 of 2002).
2. This petition was admitted on 11.2.2009 and interim relief in
terms of prayer clause (C) was granted.
3. I have heard the learned Advocates for the respective sides at
length.
WP/2038/2008
4. There is no dispute as regards the following aspects:-
(a) Those workers, as like the respondents, who had worked
on holidays, are entitled for double the wages as are normally
paid per day.
(b) The settlements between the litigating sides, referred
to by the Industrial Court in paragraph Nos.10 and 11 of the
impugned judgment are not disputed.
(c) Several other similarly situated workers have been paid
double wages for having worked on holidays.
(d) This Court, by judgment dated 2.8.2010, in Writ Petition
Nos. 2955 of 2009 and 8060 of 2009 concerning identically
placed other workers, has concluded that such monetary
benefits are liable to be paid to such workers who worked on
holidays.
(e) The Honourable Supreme Court by its order dated
31.1.2011 has dismissed the Special Leave Petitions filed by
the establishment.
(f) The Honourable Apex court by order dated 20.2.2015
has dismissed yet another Special Leave to Appeal, filed by the
establishment.
(g) The matter can be remanded back to the Industrial
Court only for a limited purpose of calculating the exact
amounts of double wages to be paid to the 51 workers involved
in the said ULP complaint by keeping in view the payments
WP/2038/2008
that the petitioner / establishment has already made to the
said workers.
5. In the light of the above, this petition is partly allowed by
consent and the impugned judgment dated 23.1.2008 is set aside only
to the extent of the direction to pay an amount of Rs.47,983.43 Ps.
per worker (51 workers) amounting to Rs.24,47,157.40 Ps.
6. Complaint (ULP) No.312 of 2004 is remitted to the Industrial
Court, Latur for permitting the litigating sides to lead evidence only
with regard to the assessment of actual unpaid amounts,which the
petitioner / establishment has to pay to the 51 workers. The
Industrial Court, Latur, after recording the evidence, may take the
assistance of the Investigating Officer, if it deems proper for the
purposes of assessing exact unpaid amounts to be paid to these 51
workers.
7. The amount of Rs.,8,00,000/- (Rs. Eight Lakhs only/-)
deposited by the petitioner and which is transmitted to the Assistant
Commissioner (Labour), Latur shall be disbursed by the Assistant
Commissioner (Labour), Latur to the 51 workers, individually, in equal
proportions. These workers will file individual apploications for
withdrawal along with proof of their identity in the form of (a)
recent photograph and (b) Copy of Voter I.D. Card. The Industrial
WP/2038/2008
Court shall consider this aspect of payment of money while arriving
at the unpaid amounts due to be paid to the 51 workers.
8. Considering the date of filing of the complaints, the Industrial
Court, Latur shall decide the above issue as expeditiously as possible
and preferably on/or before 31.1.2017. The litigating sides shall
appear before the Industrial Court, Latur on 17.10.2016 and formal
notices need not be issued.
9.
Rule is made partly absolute in the above terms.
( RAVINDRA V. GHUGE, J. )
...
akl/d
