Bombay High Court
The State Of Maharashtra And ... vs Parmanand Deoram Khalane on 6 October, 2016
Bench: R.V. Ghuge
*1* 215.wp.652.97
IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY
BENCH AT AURANGABAD
WRIT PETITION NO. 652 OF 1997
1 The State of Maharashtra.
Through the Superintending Engineer,
Nasik Pathbandhare Prakalpa Mandal-2,
Nasik.
2 The Executive Engineer,
Narmada Vikas Vibhag,
Nandurbar, Dist.Dhule.
...PETITIONERS
-VERSUS-
Parmanand Deoram Khalane,
Age : Major, Occupation : Service,
R/o Narmada Vikas Vibhag,
Nandurbar, District Dhule.
...RESPONDENT
WITH
CIVIL APPLICATION NO.5100 OF 2002
IN WP/652/1997
THE STATE OF MAHARASHTRA AND ANOTHER
VERSUS
PARMANAND DEORAM KHALANE
...
AGP for Petitioners/ State : Shri P.N.Kutti.
...
CORAM: RAVINDRA V. GHUGE, J.
DATE :- 06th October, 2016
Oral Judgment :
*2* 215.wp.652.97
1 The Petitioner/ State of Maharashtra is aggrieved by the
award dated 20.04.1995 by which Application (IDA) No.4/1994 has been
allowed by the Labour Court and the Petitioner is directed to pay
Rs.21,030/- as difference of wages with interest at the rate of 15% per
annum till actual payment.
2 This Court, while admitting the petition, did not grant interim
relief to the Petitioner.
3 Despite service of court notice at the first instance and then as
per the order dated 05.08.2010, the Respondent has not chosen to cause
any appearance either in person or through an Advocate.
4 The learned AGP has strenuously criticized the impugned
award. He submits that merely because the Respondent/ Watchman
performed his duties during night hours, it could not be said that he had
worked for 15 hours. It is humanly impossible for any watchman to work
from 05:00 am to 08:00 am on the next day, every day and year. He
submits that the Respondent was performing 07 hours work. The claim
put forth by the Respondent for overtime wages was disputed by filing the
Written Statement at Exhibit C-2. It was denied that he was working from
05:00 am on one day to 08:00 am of the next day. He draws my attention
*3* 215.wp.652.97
to the grounds raised in the petition. He, therefore, prays that the Petition
be allowed and the impugned award be quashed and set aside.
5 I have considered the submissions of the learned AGP and
have gone through the petition paper book.
6 This Court declined interim relief to the Petitioner as, prima
facie, this Court did not find any error in the impugned award. The
Government Resolutions dated 19.09.1983 and 11.02.1994 were placed
on record at Exhibits U/6 and U/7, respectively. The letter dated
23.06.1992 is also on record at Exhibit U/8 indicating that his
(Respondent) working hours were in between 06:00 pm to 08:00 am.. His
request applications were on record at Exhibits U/9, U/10 and U/11
praying for overtime wages for having worked beyond his duty hours.
7 The Government Resolutions indicate that the Watchman
shall work between 10:00 pm to 06:00 am i.e. for about eight hours. It
was established before the Labour Court that the Respondent was working
from 06:00 pm to 08:00 am. Based on oral and documentary evidence and
relying on the Government Resolutions/ Notifications, the Labour Court
calculated the extra wages that were required to be paid and arrived at a
conclusion that the Respondent would be entitled for Rs.21,030/-.
*4* 215.wp.652.97
8 In the light of the above, I do not find any reason to cause any
interference in the finding on facts. This Writ Petition being devoid of
merit is, therefore, dismissed. Rule is discharged.
9 This Court by order dated 30.08.2002 passed on Civil
Application No.5100/2002 recorded the statement of the Petitioner that
an amount of Rs.22,739/- has been deposited before the Labour Court. By
the said order, the disbursement of the amount was stayed by staying the
impugned award.
10 In the light of this judgment, in the event the said amount
deposited before the Labour Court has not been withdrawn by the
Respondent/ Employee, he would be at liberty to withdraw the same
along with accrued interest, by making an application for withdrawal duly
identified by an Advocate along with his latest photograph and a copy of
the Election Commission's Voters Identity Card.
11 The pending Civil Application is, therefore, disposed of.
kps (RAVINDRA V. GHUGE, J.)
