Bombay High Court
State Of Mah vs V S Mali on 6 October, 2016
Bench: R.V. Ghuge
*1* 204.wp.138.97
IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY
BENCH AT AURANGABAD
WRIT PETITION NO. 138 OF 1997
1 The State of Maharashtra.
Through the Executive Engineer,
Girna Irrigation Division, Jalgaon.
2 The Sub Divisional Engineer,
Irrigation Sub Division, Erandol,
District Jalgaon.
...PETITIONERS
-VERSUS-
Shri Nago Sakaram Mali,
At and Post Paldhi, Tq.Erandol,
District Jalgaon.
...RESPONDENT
...
AGP for Petitioners : Shri P.N.Kutti.
Advocate for Respondent : Shri R M Deshmukh.
...
CORAM: RAVINDRA V. GHUGE, J.
DATE :- 06th October, 2016
Oral Judgment :
1 The Petitioner is aggrieved by the judgment dated 31.07.1996
by which Application (IDA) Nos.16/1995 and 46/1995 filed by the
Respondent/ Employee under Section 33-C(2) of the Industrial Disputes
Act, 1947, have been allowed by the common judgment.
*2* 204.wp.138.97
2 The learned AGP appearing on behalf of the Petitioner has
strenuously criticized the impugned order. He submits that the
Respondent has not completed 10 years in service after he was taken on
Converted Regular Temporary Establishment (CRTE). He would be
entitled for pensionary benefits only after completing 10 years of service
on CRTE.
3 He draws my attention to the grounds raised in the petition to
support his contention that an employee has to put in 10 years after
working on CRTE. He submits that the Respondent had worked for 09
years and 08 months on CRTE and he is not entitled to the benefits
claimed.
4 Shri Deshmukh, learned Advocate for the Respondent, has
supported the impugned judgment and submits that there is no error
committed by the Labour Court.
5 He submits that the Respondent was appointed on CRTE on
01.08.1982 and he retired on 01.10.1989. From 1962 upto 1973, he had
worked on daily wages and from 1973 to 31.07.1982 on permanent daily
wages on muster. He also points out that from 1977 till July, 1982 he has
been working continuously and hence, he was taken on CRTE on
*3* 204.wp.138.97
01.08.1982. He, therefore, prays that this petition be dismissed.
6 Having considered the submissions of the learned Advocates,
I have gone through the petition paper book with their assistance.
7 This Court, in the matter of the State of Maharashtra vs.
M.V.Ghalge, 1992 Labour and Industrial Cases 748 : 1991 (2) Mh.L.J.
1557, after considering the Kalelkar Settlement has observed in paragraph
10 that an employee on daily rate establishment upon putting in five
consecutive years irrespective of the number of days actually worked in
each of these five years, he would be entitled to the benefits of Clause 28
of the Kalelkar Award after his post is converted to the post on Converted
Regular Temporary Establishment (CRTE).
8 Clause 28 of the Kalelkar Award deals with the benefit
available to the daily rated workmen. The Clause 28, when freely
translated into English, would read as under:-
"28 The benefits available to the daily rated
employees under the Kalelkar Agreement (regarding
availability of definite appointments on definite
establishments) -- Such of the workmen on daily
wages who have been working continuously for five
years on such establishment shall be entitled, upon
completion of five years, to have the posts held by
them converted into posts on temporary establishment
*4* 204.wp.138.97
and such daily rated workmen shall be appointed on
such converted posts. The post created on the
converted establishment shall be personal to the
incumbent and if the incumbent, for any reason leaves
service, such post shall come to an end. Upon
appointment on the converted temporary
establishment, the workmen shall be covered by the
Bombay Civil Services Rules."
9 Based on the interpretation of Clause 28, the Labour Court
concluded that the service of the Respondent from 1977 will have to be
reckoned while calculating his qualifying service.
10 I do not find that the impugned judgment could be termed as
being perverse or erroneous. This Writ Petition being devoid of merit is,
therefore, dismissed.
11 The Petitioner has deposited an amount of Rs.51,712/- in this
Court. The Respondent was permitted to withdraw Rs.20,000/- by order
dated 19.08.1998 passed in Civil Application No.4429/1998.
12 Considering the same, remaining amount along with accrued
interest can be withdrawn by the Respondent towards full and final
satisfaction of the impugned judgment. While filing an application for
withdrawal, the Respondent shall place on record his latest photograph
*5* 204.wp.138.97
and evidence of identity in the form of the Election Commission's Voters
Identity Card.
13 Rule is discharged.
kps (RAVINDRA V. GHUGE, J.)
