State Of Mah vs Jagannath Pundlik Thakare
2016 Latest Caselaw 5946 Bom

                                                                      WP/235/1997
                                            1

                    IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE OF BOMBAY
                               BENCH AT AURANGABAD




                                                                             
                              WRIT PETITION NO. 235 OF 1997




                                                     
     1. The State of Maharashtra
     Through the Executive Engineer,
     PWD, Jalgaon.




                                                    
     2. The Assistant Engineer-1,
     EGS (PW) Sub Division, Amalner,
     District Jalgaon.                                ..Petitioners

     Versus




                                          
     1. Jagannath Pundlik Thakare
                             
     Age 35 years, Occ. .....
     R/o Walkheda, Tq. Sindhkheda,
     District Dhule.
                            
     2. The Learned Judge,
     Labour Court, Jalgaon.

     3. The Learned Member,
      

     Industrial Court, Nasik.                         ..Respondents
                                          ...
                          AGP for Petitioners : Shri Kutti P.N.
   



                       Advocate for Respondent 1 : None present
                       Advocate for Respondents 2 & 3 : Deleted
                                          ...





                              CORAM : RAVINDRA V. GHUGE, J.

Dated: October 13, 2016 ...

ORAL JUDGMENT :-

1. Respondent Nos.2 and 3 are the Labour Court and the

Industrial Court and hence, stand deleted from these proceedings.

2. The petitioners are aggrieved by the order dated 20.8.1996,

WP/235/1997

passed by the Industrial Court, by which, it was concluded that the

Revision Petition No.104 of 1996 was not tenable.

3. I have heard the learned AGP on behalf of the petitioners.

None has appeared for the respondent, despite having adjourned this

matter earlier.

4. This Court has directed the petitioners to continue the

respondent in employment by order dated 13.7.1999 passed in Civil

Application No.2347 of 1999.

5. Though the learned AGP has strenuously submitted that the

respondent being a daily wager, could not have been continued in

employment and his disengagement would not amount to illegal

retrenchment, it cannot be ignored that the Labour Court has

granted interim relief to the respondent on 9.3.1993 in his Complaint

(ULP) No. 189 of 1992. By virtue of the said order, he was continued

in employment during the pendency of the complaint. When the

Labour Court delivered it's judgment dated 6.6.1996, it took into

account the fact that the respondent / employee was already

reinstated and continued in employment.

6. After considering the submissions of the learned AGP and the

facts emerging from this case, I am entertaining this petition only on

WP/235/1997

account of the impugned order of the Industrial Court dated

20.8.1996 being unsustainable in law.

7. After the Labour Court had delivered it's judgment dated

6.6.1996, the petitioner had preferred a Revision Petition No.104 of

1996. It is specifically mentioned in the cause title of the Revision

Petition that Section 44 of the Maharashtra Recognition of Trade

Unions and Prevention of Unfair Labour Practices Act, 1971 ("the said

Act") has been invoked. Despite the same, the Industrial Court has

surprisingly passed a cryptic order, concluding that no provision of

law is violated by the Labour Court and hence the Revision is

rejected for being not maintainable, at the admission stage itself.

8. In my view, the said order is unforeseen in law and is wholly

unsustainable. This petition is, therefore, being partly allowed by

quashing and setting aside the impugned order dated 20.8.1996. The

Industrial Court was obliged to decide the Revision Petition, which

was clearly filed under Section 44 and within two months from the

date of the impugned judgment of the Labour Court.

9. In the light of the above this petition stands partly allowed.

Revision (ULP) No.104 of 1996 is remitted back to the Industrial

Court, Jalgaon for being considered afresh under Section 44 of the

Maharashtra Recognition of Trade Unions and Prevention of Unfair

WP/235/1997

Labour Practices Act, 1971.

10. Needless to state that the Industrial Court shall issue fresh

notices to the litigating sides. All contentions of the litigating sides

are kept open, including that the petitioners contend that the

respondent was working on EGS. It is expected that the Industrial

Court shall decide this Revision Petition, as expeditiously as possible,

and preferably on/or before 31.3.2017. As the respondent has been

in employment from 1993, and in the event he is in employment even

today, he shall be continued on the same terms and conditions on

which he has been working pursuant to the earlier orders of the

Labour Court and of this Court, during the pendency and decision of

the Revision Petition.

11. Rule is made partly absolute in the above terms.

( RAVINDRA V. GHUGE, J. ) ...

akl/d