The State Of Maharashtra & Others vs Dagadu Yashwant Take & Another
2016 Latest Caselaw 6256 Bom

                                         1




                                                                          
             IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE OF BOMBAY   
                         BENCH AT AURANGABAD




                                                  
                            WRIT PETITION NO.1128 OF 1997

    1.     The State of Maharashtra,




                                                 
    2.     The Executive Engineer,
           Public Works Division,
           Ahmednagar                                  -- PETITIONERS




                                        
    VERSUS

    1.     Manik Pandurang Chaware,
                              
           at Handi Nimgaon,
           Post : Mukindpur, Tq.Newasa,
           Dist.Ahmednagar,
                             
    2.     Presiding Officer and Judge,
           2nd Labour Court, Ahmednagar                -- RESPONDENTS

WITH

WRIT PETITION NO.1132 OF 1997

1. The State of Maharashtra,

2. The Executive Engineer, Public Works Division,

Ahmednagar -- PETITIONERS

VERSUS

1. Manik Dagdu Take,

At Handi Nimgaon, Post : Mukindpur, Tq.Newasa, Dist.Ahmednagar,

2. Presiding Officer and Judge, 2nd Labour Court, Ahmednagar -- RESPONDENTS

WITH WRIT PETITION NO.1133 OF 1997

khs/OCT.2016/1128-d

1. The State of Maharashtra,

2. The Executive Engineer, Public Works Division, Ahmednagar -- PETITIONER

VERSUS

1. Dagdu Yeshwant Take, at Handi Nimgaon, Post : Mukindpur, Tq.Newasa,

Dist.Ahmednagar,

2. Presiding Officer and Judge,

2nd Labour Court, Ahmednagar -- RESPONDENTS

Mr.P.N.Kutti, AGP for the petitioners/State.

Mr.S.D.Dhongde, Advocate for respondent No.1 (Absent)

( CORAM : RAVINDRA V. GHUGE, J.)

DATE : 21/10/2016

ORAL JUDGMENT :

1. In all these petitions, the petitioners have challenged the

judgment of the Labour Court dated 27/08/1996 in Complaint (ULP)

Nos.189/1992, 191/1992 and 187/1992 respectively.

2. In all these matters since respondent No.2 is the learned

Presiding Officer, Labour Court, same stands deleted from these

proceedings.

3. I have considered the submissions of the learned AGP on behalf

of the petitioners and the grounds below paragraph Nos.5 (i) to (x).

khs/OCT.2016/1128-d

4. This Court, in the matter of Engineering Employees Union Vs.

Devidayal Rolling and Refinaries Pvt.Ltd., 1986 (52) FLR 40 = 1986

Mh.L.J. 331 has already concluded that any order passed by the

Labour Court u/s 28(1), Section 30 and Section 32 of the MRTU and

PULP Act, 1971, cannot be directly challenged in this Court without

exhausting the remedy of filing of revision petition u/s 44 of the Act

of 1971.

5. Notwithstanding the above, the Labour Court has granted

reinstatement with continuity in service without back wages to these

respondents vide the impugned judgment. This Court, while

admitting the matter, has not granted interim relief to the petitioners.

6. The learned AGP is unable to state as to whether the

respondents are still in service.

7. None has appeared for respondent No.1 despite granting an

adjournment earlier in these matters, which are on the final hearing

board having been filed in February 1997.

khs/OCT.2016/1128-d

8. The stand taken by the petitioners before the Labour Court was

that the respondents were working on daily wages and were offered

work whenever it was available. The Labour Court was convinced that

juniors were retained in service while terminating the respondents.

This court, after hearing the petitioners at the stage of admission, was

not convinced that the impugned judgment deserves to be stayed.

9.

Considering the above and the fact that a period of about 20

years has lapsed since the admission of these matters, I do not find it

appropriate to cause any interference in the order of reinstatement

granted by the Labour Court.

10. Needless to state, in the event, the respondents are in

employment pursuant to the judgment of the Labour Court, they would

be entitled to such service benefits as may be permissible under their

service rules and conditions of employment. In the event, they are not

in employment, it is left to the said respondents to deal with such a

situation

11. These petitions are therefore dismissed. Rule is discharged.

( RAVINDRA V. GHUGE, J.)

khs/OCT.2016/1128-d