Bombay High Court
State Of Mah.,An D Ors vs Pandurang B.Khedkar on 20 October, 2016
Bench: R.V. Ghuge
*1* 903.wp.737.97
IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY
BENCH AT AURANGABAD
WRIT PETITION NO. 737 OF 1997
The State of Maharashtra.
Through the Executive Engineer,
Public Works Department,
Ahmednagar.
...PETITIONER
-VERSUS-
Pandurang Bhiwa Khedkar,
R/o Munguswadi, Tq.Pathardi,
District Ahmednagar.
...RESPONDENT
...
AGP for Petitioner : Shri P.N.Kutti.
Advocate for Respondent : Shri A.S.Shelke.
...
CORAM: RAVINDRA V. GHUGE, J.
DATE :- 20th October, 2016
Oral Judgment :
1 The Petitioner is aggrieved by the judgment and award dated
05.06.1996 delivered by the Labour Court by which Reference (IDA)
No.56/1988 has been partly allowed and the Respondent is granted
reinstatement with continuity of service, but without back wages.
2 This Court, by order dated 27.02.1997, had stayed the
*2* 903.wp.737.97
impugned award by granting prayer clause (D). By order dated
21.02.2002, this petition was admitted and interim relief was continued.
3 By order dated 07.07.2000 in Civil Application No.3438/1998
filed by the Respondent/ Employee, this Court had granted him benefits of
Section 17-B of the Industrial Disputes Act, 1947.
4 I have considered the submissions of the learned Advocates
for the respective sides for quite sometime.
5 The Respondent was working with the Petitioners from
01.06.1982 till 01.09.1986. The Written Statement filed by the Petitioners
before the Labour Court Exhibit C/5 indicates that he had worked from
01.06.1982 to 01.05.1983 for about 231 days. He then worked from
01.06.1983 till 01.06.1984 and put in about 147 days. The Written
Statement does not indicate about the employment of the Respondent
during the period 19.06.1984 to 01.09.1986. While computing 240 days,
the Labour Court has taken into account that weekly holidays and national
holidays were not included while calculating 240 days. Placing reliance
upon reported judgments, the Labour Court concluded that weekly
holidays and national holidays should be added to the total days of actual
working so as to calculate 240 days in employment.
*3* 903.wp.737.97
6 It appears from the impugned award that the Respondent
proved that he had worked for four years with the Petitioner.
7 It is evident that in this case the Respondent is said to have
worked on daily wages for a period of about four years and is out of
employment for the last 30 years. Eventually, this is a case of a short spell
of employment followed by a long period of 30 years of unemployment.
The Honourable Apex Court in the following four cases has concluded that
in such situations, quantified compensation would be an appropriate relief
rather than granting reinstatement with back wages:-
(a) Assistant Engineer, Rajasthan State Agriculture Marketing
Board, Sub-Division, Kota Vs. Mohanlal, [2013 LLR 1009];
(b) Assistant Engineer, Rajasthan Development Corporation and
another Vs. Gitam Singh, [(2013) 5 SCC 136];
(c) BSNL Vs. Man Singh, [(2012) 1 SCC 558]; and
(d) Jagbir Singh Vs. Haryana State Agriculture Marketing Board,
[(2009) 15 SCC 327].
8 Considering the above, I deem it appropriate to modify the
impugned award. This Writ Petition is, therefore, partly allowed. The
*4* 903.wp.737.97
impugned award dated 05.06.1996 stands modified and the Respondent
would be eligible to the compensation of Rs.1,20,000/- (Rupees One Lac
Twenty Thousand). The amount of wages paid under Section 17-B of the
Industrial Disputes Act, 1947 pursuant to the order of this Court dated
07.07.2000 shall be set off against the compensation amount and then,
the residual amount, if any, shall be paid to the Respondent in SIXTEEN
WEEKS.
In the event, the said amount is not paid within the time as is
directed above, the Respondent would be entitled for simple interest at
the rate of 6% per annum from the date of the award till it's actual
payment and the amount of interest shall be recovered from the salary of
the Executive Engineer, Public Words Division, Ahmednagar. Needless to
state, the interest amount shall not be paid from the State exchequer.
10 In the event, the amount paid under Section 17-B to the
Respondent is more than the compensation granted by this Court, there
shall be no recovery from the Respondent.
11 Rule is made partly absolute in the above terms.
kps (RAVINDRA V. GHUGE, J.)
