Bombay High Court
State Of Maharashtra & Another vs Telbaji Tatyaba Ghule on 20 October, 2016
Bench: R.V. Ghuge
*1* 915.wp.744.97
IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY
BENCH AT AURANGABAD
WRIT PETITION NO. 744 OF 1997
1 The State of Maharashtra.
2 The Executive Engineer,
Public Works Department,
Ahmednagar.
...PETITIONER
-VERSUS-
Telbaji Tatyaba Ghule,
R/o Shekte, Post Bhutetaki,
Tq.Pathardi, District Ahmednagar.
...RESPONDENT
WITH
CIVIL APPLICATION NO.3593 OF 1998
IN WP/744/1997
...
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 Petitioners are aggrieved by the judgment and award
dated 04.06.1996 delivered by the Labour Court in Reference (IDA)
No.57/1988 by which the Respondent was granted reinstatement on the
same terms and conditions as a temporary employee and his name was to
*2* 915.wp.744.97
be entered in the seniority list from the date of the award and he was
entitled to the benefits as per the Rules.
2 I have considered the submissions of the learned Advocates
for the respective sides. With their assistance, I have gone through the
record available.
3 I find that the Respondent had claimed to be in employment
on daily wages with the Petitioner from 13.08.1984 till 18.08.1986. He
claimed that he was entitled for the benefits of the Kalelkar Settlement.
However, owing to the zero budget situation in the State and on account
of lack of funds, he was disengaged without compliance of Section 25-G
and 25-G of the Industrial Disputes Act, 1947 and in violation of Rule 81
of the Industrial Disputes (Bombay) Rules, 1957. He has promptly raised
an industrial dispute and has appeared before the Labour Court in
Reference (IDA) No.57/1988. The Labour Court concluded on the basis of
the available material that he was continuously working and hence, he
deserved to be brought back to the position from which he was
terminated. It is not in dispute that the Labour Court has granted him
reinstatement on the same terms and conditions as a temporary employee
and the Petitioner was directed to take his name in the seniority list and
provide him work.
*3* 915.wp.744.97
4 The learned AGP has drawn my attention to the affidavit in
reply dated 27.07.1998 that was filed in Civil Application No.3593/1998
vide which the Respondent had claimed benefits under Section 17-B of the
Industrial Disputes Act, 1947. The Petitioner has specifically stated in
paragraph 4 of the said affidavit in reply that the Respondent/ Employee
had completed 58 years of age which is the age of retirement on the date
of the award and he was 61 years old on 27.07.1998. There is nothing to
indicate that the Respondent disputed this position, inasmuch as the
Respondent has not questioned the award by which he was granted
temporary work.
5 Be that as it may, what has been established before the
Labour Court is that the Respondent was working for two years upto
August, 1986. It is evident that he is not in employment in the last 30
years and considering the affidavit in reply filed by the Petitioner on
27.07.1998, the Respondent had reached the age of superannuation in the
year when the award was delivered.
6 In the light of the above, I deem it appropriate to rely upon
the ratio laid down by the Honourable Supreme Court in the following
four cases:-
*4* 915.wp.744.97
(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].
The Honourable Supreme Court has held that where an
employee has put in a short tenure of service which is followed by a long
period of unemployment, compensation at the rate of Rs.30,000/- per
year of service put in by the employee can be granted.
8 In the light of the above, this Writ Petition is partly allowed.
The impugned award stands set aside and is replaced by the direction to
the Petitioner to pay an amount of Rs.60,000/- (Rupees Sixty Thousand)
to the Respondent within a period of SIXTEEN (16) WEEKS from today.
9 In the event, the Petitioner causes delay in payment of the
amount as directed above, the Respondent would be entitled to simple
interest at the rate of 6% per annum on the amount of Rs.60,000/- from
*5* 915.wp.744.97
the date of the award till it's actual payment and the amount of such
interest will then be recovered from the salaries of the Executive Engineer,
Public Works Department, Ahmednagar. Needless to state, the amount of
interest shall not be paid from the State exchequer.
10 Rule is made partly absolute in the above terms.
11 The pending Civil Application, if any, does not survive and the
same stands disposed of.
kps (RAVINDRA V. GHUGE, J.)
