Bombay High Court
The Chief Executive Officer, Zp, ... vs Nagnath Baburao Solapure on 21 October, 2016
Bench: R.V. Ghuge
1
IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE OF BOMBAY
BENCH AT AURANGABAD
WRIT PETITION NO.4647 OF 2007
1. The Chief Executive Officer,
Zilla Parishad, Latur,
2. The Executive Engineer,
Minor Irrigation Division,
Zilla Parishad, Latur -- PETITIONERS
VERSUS
Nagnath S/o Baburao Solapure,
Age-61 years, Occu-Retired Driver,
R/o Samata Nagar, Udgir,
Dist.Latur -- RESPONDENT
Mr.P.R.Tandale, Advocate for the petitioners.
Mr.A.B.Chalak h/f Mr.S.B.Talekar, Advocate for the respondent.
( CORAM : RAVINDRA V. GHUGE, J.)
DATE : 21/10/2016
ORAL JUDGMENT :
1. The petitioner is aggrieved by the judgment and order dated
17/01/2007 delivered by the Industrial Court, Latur by which
Complaint (ULP) No.1/2006 has been allowed and the petitioners are
directed to pay retiral benefits as prayed for in prayer clause "C" of
the complaint.
2. I have heard the strenuous submissions of the learned
khs/OCT.2016/4647-d
Advocates and with their assistance, I have gone through the record
available.
3. It appears from the submissions of the petitioners that the
issue is with regard to the Kalelkar Settlement. The respondent was
covered by the Maruf Award and pensionary benefits are not available
under the said award. Pensionary benefits are available only under
the Kalelkar settlement.
4. It is then submitted that the respondent had preferred
Application (IDA) No.110/1982 which was decided by judgment dated
11/07/1986. The respondent had claimed u/s 33(C)(2) of the I.D.Act
that benefits as regards pay scale under the Maruf Settlement were
not extended to him.
5. I find that the Labour Court had recorded in its judgment
dated 11/07/1986 in paragraph No.6 that the respondent was not
eligible for being brought on Converted Regular Temporary
Establishment (CRTE) as he had not completed 5 years in service.
6. It also appears that the respondent had filed an affidavit before
the Labour Court on 03/09/1982 contending that he must get
khs/OCT.2016/4647-d
benefits as per the Maruf Award.
7. Grievance of the petitioners is that the respondent has been
granted retiral benefits as prayed for in the complaint and by allowing
the complaint, the Industrial Court has granted benefits under the
Kalelkar Settlement to the respondent, which is impermissible as he
was covered by the Maruf Award.
8. A document dated 06/06/1983, which is an order issued by
the Chief Executive Officer, Zilla Parishad, Latur is placed on record,
which is marked as Exhibit "X" for identification. The said document
makes a reference to the GR dated 10/07/1974. Exhibit "X" is an
order by which the respondent as well as another co-worker namely
A.S.Bharde have been brought on regular converted temporary
establishment. So also, a document dated 16/07/1996 is placed on
record which is also issued by the C.E.O. Zilla Parishad, Latur
marked as Exhibit "Y" for identification. Exhibit "Y" indicates that
the seniority list of the drivers in class III is settled under the
Kalelkar settlement. The name of Mr.Bharde appears at Sr.No.9 and
the respondent appears at Sr.No.18. A similar seniority list w.e.f.
01/04/1989 also indicates that the respondent was brought on
CRTE as per the Kalelkar settlement.
khs/OCT.2016/4647-d
9. The petitioner has placed before this Court a judgment
delivered by the learned Division Bench of this Court dated
14/12/2001 in WP No.1896/1990 in the matter of Akhil Marathwada
Zilla Parishad Kamgar Union Vs. The State to indicate that this Court
has concluded that the Maruf Settlement was validly terminated by
the Zilla Parishad, Nanded. It was also recorded that the Union as
well as the Workman were called upon to give their options to be
covered either by the Maruf Settlement or under the Kalelkar
settlement. No document is cited by the petitioners which can be
said to be a clear expression by the respondent of having opted for
the Maruf Settlement benefits. The contention of the petitioners that
his affidavit before the Labour Court dated 03/09/1982 should be
taken as his expression of having opted for the Maruf settlement, is
misplaced since filing of an affidavit before the Labour Court was not
the manner of expressing an option, as was expected by the Division
Bench of this Court.
10. Consequentially, Exhibit "X" and "Y" would therefore indicate
that the petitioners have covered the respondent under the Kalelkar
Settlement alongwith other co-workers Mr.Bharde and Ahmed Husain
who were brought on converted temporary establishment by the same
khs/OCT.2016/4647-d
order dated 06/06/1983. I, therefore, do not find that the Industrial
Court has committed any error by delivering the impugned judgment.
11. Mr.Tandale, learned Advocate for the petitioners submits that
the respondent has received gratuity under the Maruf Settlement,
which is not available under the Kalelkar Settlement.
12.
I do not find any merit in the said submission since the
gratuity is to be paid under the Payment of Gratuity Act, 1972. As
such, the fact that the respondent has received gratuity, is not
indicative of the respondent having accepted the Maruf Settlement.
13. As such, this petition is dismissed. Rule is discharged.
( RAVINDRA V. GHUGE, J.)
khs/OCT.2016/4647-d
