Bombay High Court
M/S Kinetic Engineering Co.Ltd vs Shri Ajay Irrappa Basapure And ... on 13 October, 2016
Bench: R.V. Ghuge
WP/669/1997
1
IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE OF BOMBAY
BENCH AT AURANGABAD
WRIT PETITION NO. 669 OF 1997
M/s Kinetic Engineering Co. Ltd.
Nagar Dhond Road, Ahmednagar. ..Petitioner
Versus
1. Shri Ajay Irrappa Basapure
House No.1833, Subhedar Galli,
Ahmednagar.
2. The Presiding officer,
First Labour Court, Ahmednagar.
ig ..Respondents
...
Advocate for Petitioner : Shri V.S.Bedre
Advocate for Respondent 1 : Shri P.V.Barde
Respondent 2 : Deleted.
...
CORAM : RAVINDRA V. GHUGE, J.
Dated: October 13, 2016
...
ORAL JUDGMENT :-
1. The petitioner is aggrieved by the award dated 28.6.1996,
delivered by the Labour Court, Ahmednagar by which, Reference
(IDA) No.87 of 1988, filed by the respondent has been allowed and he
has been granted reinstatement with continuity and 20% backwages.
2. Respondent No.2 in this matter being the Presiding Officer of
the Labour Court, stands deleted.
3. I have heard the learned Advocates for the petitioner and the
WP/669/1997
respondent at length.
4. There is no dispute that the respondent was engaged as a
temporary for the period 14.10.1984 to 13.4.1985 and 21.4.1985 to
22.11.1985 by the Ahmednagar Unit of the petitioner. The
Chinchwad Unit of the petitioner engaged him from 22.1.1986 till
31.7.1986 and 8.4.1987 till 7.10.1987. He has thus worked for a total
period of 25 months in between October 1984 till October 1987.
5.
It is not in dispute that the respondent is not working with the
petitioner since 8.10.1987 over a period of almost 29 years. It is also
not in dispute that his last drawn wages were at the rate of Rs.650/-
per month.
6. By an order dated 12.6.1997, this Court stayed the impugned
award and granted liberty to the petitioner to consider offering work
to the respondent.
7. The Honourable Apex Court in the following four cases has
settled the law that where a small tenure of employment has been
put in by the employee, followed by a long spell of unemployment,
grant of compensation instead of reinstatement and continuity and
backwages would be appropriate:-
WP/669/1997
1. Assistant Engineer, Rajasthan State Agriculture Marketing
Board, Sub-Division, Kota Vs. Mohanlal [2013 LLR 1009],
2. Assistant Engineer, Rajasthan Development Corporation and
another Vs. Gitam Singh [(2013) 5 SCC 136],
3. BSNL Vs. Man Singh [(2012) 1 SCC 558] and
4. Jagbir Singh Vs. Haryana State Agriculture Marketing Board
[(2009) 15 SCC 327].
7.
In the instant case the respondent has worked under four
appointment orders as a temporary employee over a period of three
years. The petitioner is a private company and is not a 'State
instrumentality'. Though the impugned award has been stayed by this
Court, the respondent had not been granted Section 17B benefits
under the Industrial Disputes Act, 1947. Considering this aspect that
he would have been entitled to Section 17B benefits and that the
petitioner is a private entity, I am enhancing the amount of
compensation from Rs.30,000/- per year to Rs.40,000/- per year, as
the view taken by the Honourable Supreme Court was in matters of
'State instrumentalities'.
8. In the light of the above, this petition is partly allowed. The
impugned award dated 28.6.1996 in Reference (IDA) No.87 of 1998 is
modified and the respondent is granted compensation of an amount
WP/669/1997
of Rs.1,20,000/- as quantified compensation and he would not be
entitled for any other benefits in relation to his employment and
non-employment. The said amount shall be paid to the respondent /
employee within a period of 12 weeks from today, failing which the
said amount would carry interest at the rate of 6% per annum from
the date of the award.
9. Rule is made partly absolute in the above terms.
ig ( RAVINDRA V. GHUGE, J. )
...
akl/d
