Bombay High Court
Zilla Parishad Ahmednagar vs Bhausaheb Naguji Kasar on 20 October, 2016
Bench: R.V. Ghuge
*1* 906.wp.1379.1392.1418.04.con
IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY
BENCH AT AURANGABAD
WRIT PETITION NO. 1379 OF 2004
WITH
CIVIL APPLICATION NO.7470/2005
IN WP/1379/2004
Zilla Parishad, Ahmednagar.
Through its Chief Executive Officer.
...PETITIONER
-VERSUS-
Bajirao Gangadhar Rahane,
Age : Major, Occupation : Nil,
R/o Chandanapuri,
Tal.Sangamner,
District Ahmednagar.
Died through L.Rs.:-
1 Smt.Kantabai Bajirao Rahane,
Age : 58 years, Occupation : Nil.
2 Pravin Bajirao Rahane,
Age : 27 years, Occupation : Education.
3 Kanchan Bajirao Rahane,
Age : 25 years, Occupation : Education.
4 Vikas Bajirao Rahane,
Age : 22 years, Occupation : Education.
All R/o Chandanapuri, Tal.Sangamner,
District Ahmednagar.
(L.Rs. brought on record as per order passed today
i.e. 20.10.2016).
...RESPONDENTS
WITH
WRIT PETITION NO.1392 OF 2004
WITH
::: Uploaded on - 24/10/2016 ::: Downloaded on - 26/10/2016 00:26:26 :::
*2* 906.wp.1379.1392.1418.04.con
CIVIL APPLICATION NO.7472 OF 2005
IN WP/1392/2004
Zilla Parishad, Ahmednagar.
Through its Chief Executive Officer.
...PETITIONER
-VERSUS-
1 Vishnu Shankar Kale,
Age : Major, Occupation : Nil,
R/o Shingwe Naik,
Taluka and District Ahmednagar.
2 Baba Bhimaji Pund,
Age : Major, Occupation : Nil,
R/o Dehere,
Tal. and Dist.Ahmednagar.
3 Machindra s/o Laxman Shinde,
Age : Major, Occupation : Nil,
R/o Warwandi, Tal.Rahuri,
District Ahmednagar.
...RESPONDENTS
WITH
WRIT PETITION NO.1418 OF 2004
WITH
CIVIL APPLICATION NO.7469 OF 2005
IN WP/1418/2004
Zilla Parishad, Ahmednagar.
Through its Chief Executive Officer.
...PETITIONER
-VERSUS-
Bhausaheb s/o Naguji Kasar,
Age : Major, Occupation : Nil,
R/o C/o Panchayat Samiti,
Newasa, Tal.Newasa,
District Ahmednagar.
...RESPONDENT
::: Uploaded on - 24/10/2016 ::: Downloaded on - 26/10/2016 00:26:26 :::
*3* 906.wp.1379.1392.1418.04.con
...
Advocate for Petitioner : Shri S T Shelke.
Advocate for Respondents : Shri Narwade Narayan B. and Shri
V.N.Upadhye.
...
CORAM: RAVINDRA V. GHUGE, J.
DATE :- 20th October, 2016
Oral Judgment :
1 In all these matters, the Petitioner/ Zilla Parishad has
challenged the judgment and order dated 11.08.2003 delivered by the
Industrial Court in Complaint (ULP) Nos.17/1993, 451/1994 and
505/1992, respectively. In all these matters, the Industrial Court has
granted benefits of the Kalelkar Settlement to these Respondents/
Employees. While admitting these petitions, this Court has stayed the
impugned judgments.
2 There is no dispute that in all these matters, the Petitioner is
the Zilla Parishad, Ahmednagar and the Respondents are identically
situated employees. Hence, I have taken up these petitions together for
final hearing.
3 In the first petition, the sole Respondent (Bajirao Gangadhar
Rahane) has passed away on 21.06.2016. On oral request of the learned
*4* 906.wp.1379.1392.1418.04.con
Advocate for the deceased Respondent and the consent of the Petitioner, I
have permitted him to bring on record the legal heirs of the deceased
Respondent/ employee forthwith.
4 In the second petition, the Respondents, namely, Vishnu
Shankar Kale and Baba Bhimaji Pund have retired from service and
Mahindra Laxman Shinde is still in employment.
In the third petition, the sole Respondent has retired from
service.
6 I have considered the strenuous submissions of the learned
Advocates for the respective sides. With their assistance, I have gone
through the petition paper books and the impugned judgments.
7 It is apparent that there is no dispute that the Kalelkar Award
applies to the Petitioner/ Zilla Parishad and the contingencies flowing
from the Kalelkar Award are applicable to the daily wage workers. It is
part of the Kalelkar Award that the daily wagers, who have put in five
years in continuous employment with such Establishments, are required to
be taken on Converted Regular Temporary Establishments (CRTE). After
working for five years on CRTE, they are to be absorbed on permanent
*5* 906.wp.1379.1392.1418.04.con
establishments. There is also no dispute that the Kalelkar Settlement is
still applicable.
8 It is equally undisputed that the deceased Respondent in the
first petition was working till he passed away. There is also no dispute that
the employees, who have retired during the pendency of these petitions,
were working with the Petitioner till they attained the age of
superannuation. In this backdrop, the rights of the Respondents/
Employees to the benefits of the Kalelkar Settlement cannot be denied and
stand crystallized. As such, I do not find that the Industrial Court has
committed any error in concluding that these Respondents are entitled to
the benefits of the Kalelkar Settlement.
9 Considering the above, all these petitions being devoid of
merit are, therefore, dismissed. Rule is discharged.
10 Needless to state, the Petitioner/ Establishment shall consider
the individual cases of these Respondents strictly within the ambit of the
Kalelkar Settlement and shall make benefits available to them including
the employees, who have retired. Further, the Petitioner shall calculate
monetary benefits that would be available to these Respondents/
Employees on the basis of the Kalelkar Settlement and shall extend the
*6* 906.wp.1379.1392.1418.04.con
said benefits by making necessary payments to the Respondents within a
period of SIX MONTHS from today.
11 The pending Civil Applications do not survive and stand
disposed of.
kps (RAVINDRA V. GHUGE, J.)
