Bombay High Court
Executive Engineer, Kukadi ... vs Balu Prabhu Bhosale on 27 October, 2016
Bench: R.V. Ghuge
*1* 916.wp.3219.4658.11.con
IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY
BENCH AT AURANGABAD
WRIT PETITION NO. 3219 OF 2011
1 Executive Engineer,
Kukadi Project Land
Development Division No.1,
Ahmednagar.
(For closed Division).
Executive Engineer,
Kukadi Command Area
Development Division,
Sinchan Bhavan, Ahmednagar,
Tq. & District Ahmednagar.
2 Executive Engineer,
Maharashtra Water Utilisation
Department No.1, Ahmednagar,
Taluka and District Ahmednagar.
...PETITIONERS
-VERSUS-
Bhaga s/o Prabhu Bhosale,
Age : 48 years, Occupation : Nil,
R/o At Post Shirapur,
Taluka Parner,
District Ahmednagar.
...RESPONDENT
WITH
WRIT PETITION NO.4658 OF 2011
1 Executive Engineer,
Kukadi Project Land
Development Division No.1,
Ahmednagar.
(For closed Division).
::: Uploaded on - 27/10/2016 ::: Downloaded on - 28/10/2016 01:09:00 :::
*2* 916.wp.3219.4658.11.con
Executive Engineer,
Kukadi Command Area
Development Division,
Sinchan Bhavan, Ahmednagar,
Tq. & District Ahmednagar.
2 Executive Engineer,
Maharashtra Water Utilisation
Department No.1, Ahmednagar,
Taluka and District Ahmednagar.
...PETITIONERS
-VERSUS-
Balu s/o Prabhu Bhosale,
Age : 48 years, Occupation : Nil,
R/o At Post Shirapur,
Taluka Parner,
District Ahmednagar.
...RESPONDENT
...
Advocate for Petitioners : Shri Rajale Gulab B.
Advocate for Respondents : Shri P.V.Barde.
...
CORAM: RAVINDRA V. GHUGE, J.
DATE :- 27th October, 2016
Oral Judgment :
1 The Petitioner in both these petitions is the same Department,
which is aggrieved by the judgment and award delivered by the Labour
Court dated 27.09.2010 in Reference (IDA) Nos.3/1996 and 9/1996 by
which the Respondents/ Employees have been granted reinstatement with
*3* 916.wp.3219.4658.11.con
effect from their respective dates of termination, with continuity and back
wages from the dates of lodging of the reference proceedings.
2 This Court, while admitting the petitions on 05.08.2011, had
stayed the payment of back wages until the disposal of the Writ Petitions.
The Petitioners had approached the Honourable Supreme Court in SLP
Nos.19722-19725 of 2014, which were disposed of by order dated
12.07.2016 with the expectation that this Court would decide both these
petitions within six months from the date of the order.
3 I have considered the submissions of the learned Advocates
for the respective sides for quite sometime and have gone through the
petition paper books.
4 The learned Division Bench of this Court (to which I am a
party) by order dated 18.10.2013 had concluded that there is no dispute
as regards the tenure of employment of the employees. Both the learned
Advocates do not have any objection if this Court hears these matters
considering that the Division Bench has disposed of the Letter Patent
Appeal Nos.298/2011 and 299/2011 filed by the Petitioners.
5 Considering the above, there remains no debate about the
*4* 916.wp.3219.4658.11.con
duration of work performed by these two Respondents/ Employees, which
is two years in the first petition and three years in the second petition.
There is also no dispute that both these Respondents/ Employees are not
in employment from 1983 and as such, the period of non employment is
33 years.
6 The Honourable Supreme Court has taken a view in the
matters of such nature in the following four cases that where the
employees have put in a short spell of service and are out of employment
for a long duration, quantifying the compensation at the rate of
Rs.30,000/- per year of service put in by them, would be an appropriate
relief rather than granting reinstatement with continuity and 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].
7 In the instant case, though the compensation would,
*5* 916.wp.3219.4658.11.con
therefore, be about Rs.60,000/- for the Respondent in the first petition
and Rs.90,000/- for the Respondent in the second petition, it cannot be
ignored that by order dated 05.08.2011, this Court had only stayed the
payment of back wages and expected the Petitioners to reinstate the
Respondents. It is informed that the Petitioners have not reinstated the
Respondents in service and as a consequence, they have continued to be
out of employment.
In the light of the above, both these petitions are partly
allowed and the directions of the Labour Court in the impugned awards
granting reinstatement with continuity and some back wages is modified
by directing the Petitioners to pay compensation of Rs.80,000/- (Rupees
Eighty Thousand) to the Respondent (Bhaga Prabhu Bhosale) in the first
petition and Rs.1,10,000/- (Rupees One Lac Ten Thousand) to the
Respondent (Balu Prabhu Bhosale) in the second petition, with TWELVE
WEEKS from today.
9 In the event, the Petitioners fail to pay the said compensation
within the time frame, both the Respondents/ Employees would be
entitled for interest at the rate of 6% per annum from the date of the
awards till it's actual payment and the said amount of interest shall be
paid from the salary of the Executive Engineer, Kukadi Project Land
*6* 916.wp.3219.4658.11.con
Development Division No.1, 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.
kps (RAVINDRA V. GHUGE, J.)
