Bombay High Court
Vijay Waman Thorat vs The State Of Mah on 15 September, 2016
Bench: R.V. Ghuge
WP/2160/1996
1
IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE OF BOMBAY
BENCH AT AURANGABAD
WRIT PETITION NO. 2160 OF 1996
1) Shri. Vijay Waman Thorat,
At - Post - Taluka - District
Dhule, Moglai, Lane No. 2, Dhule.
2) Shri. Bhagwan Narayan Beedkar,
Moglai, Gawali Wada, Dhule,
Taluka - District Dhule.
3) Shri. Madhukar Shriram Deore,
At - Post - Taluka - Dist.
Dhule, Neharu Nagar,
Municipal Colony, Deopur,
Dhule.
4) Shri. Satish Kashinath Sali,
At - Post - Taluka - Taloda,
Dist. Dhule.
5) Shri. Yeshwant Gokul Sonawane,
At - Post Chahardi,
Taluka - Chopada,
District Jalgaon.
6) Shri. Bhaidas Maharu Patil,
At - Post Chahardi,
Taluka - Chopada,
District Jalgaon.
7) Shri. Shreeram Murlidhar Vispute,
At - Post Dondaicha,
Taluka - Sindkheda,
District Dhule.
8) Shri. Vikram Jetharam Kharde,
At - Post Rampur,
Taluka - Shahada,
District Dhule.
9) Shri. Laxman Mahadu Wadile,
At - Post Taluka - District
Dhule. Lane No. 8,
Deopur, Dhule.
::: Uploaded on - 16/09/2016 ::: Downloaded on - 17/09/2016 01:08:33 :::
WP/2160/1996
2
10) Shri. Sharad Deoram Tayade,
R/o. Balwadi, Taluka
Raver, Dist. Jalgaon.
11) Shri. Nana Ramchandra More,
R/o. Varkheda Road,
Post Eggaon, Taluka
Bhusawal.
12) Shri Bhagwan Raghunath Suryawanshi,
At - Nathwade, Jalgaon,
Dist. Jalgaon.
13) Shri. Tejrao Janardhan Patil,
Resident Lonwadi, Post Kurhehardo,
Taluka - Bhusawal, Dist. Jalgaon.
14) Shri. Ramesh Dayaram Dusane,
At - Post Taluka District Dhule,
Abhiyanta Nagar, Wadibhokar Road,
Deopur, Dhule.
15) Mohan Hiraman Wagh,
At - Post, Taluka District Dhule
Santsena Nagar,
Plot No. 39-A, Deopur,
Dhule.
16) Shri. Ramdas Pitambar Warude,
At - Post Arave,
Taluka Shirpur,
District Dhule.
17) Shri. Chandrakant Devidas Ahrirao
At - Post Taluka District Dhule,
Santsena Nagar, Plot No. 63/B,
Deopur, Dhule.
18) Shri Deoram Joka Valvi,
At - Post Dhanora,
Taluka Nandurbar,
District Dhule.
19) Shri Sukdeo Jagannath Fulpagare
Lane No. 13, House No. 930,
Subhash Nagar, Dhule.
::: Uploaded on - 16/09/2016 ::: Downloaded on - 17/09/2016 01:08:33 :::
WP/2160/1996
3
20) Shri. Sharad Harsing Gaikwad,
Resident of Hatti Galli,
Near Ganesh Dudh Dairy,
Parola, Dist. Jalgaon.
21) Shri. Vijay Sadashiv Salunkhe,
At - Post Shewali,
Taluka - Sakri, Dist. Dhule
22) Shri. Narayan Natthu Khaire,
At - Post Khede,
Taluka - District Dhule.
23) Shri. Ravindra J. Chaudhari,
At - Post Taluka Shirpur,
District Dhule.
24) Shri. Subhash Deoram Koli,
At - Post Taluka Sindkheda,
District Dhule.
25) Shri. Jagdish Wamanrao Patil,
Resident of Virdel Road,
At - Post Sindkheda,
District Dhule.
26) Shri. Devidas Bhatu Fulpagare,
At - Post, Taluka-Dist. Dhule,
Lane No. 13/865, Dhule.
27) Shri. Bhika Supadu Petkar,
Upaila Chauk, At-Post Taluka Sakri,
Dist. Dhule.
28) Shri. Bhajan Bakaram Pawar,
At - Post Lonepada,
Taluka Nandurbar,
District Dhule.
29) Smt. Kevalbai Vedu Chavan,
Koliwada, At - Post,
Taluka Sindkheda,
District Dhule.
30) Shri Vasant Digambar Suryawanshi,
At - Post - Taluka District Dhule.
::: Uploaded on - 16/09/2016 ::: Downloaded on - 17/09/2016 01:08:33 :::
WP/2160/1996
4
31) Shri Dajbhau Chaitram Pawar,
At Ambemohar, Post Titone, Taluka
Sakri, District - Dhule.
32) Shri. Kalu Motiram Ahire,
At Dhavali Vihir,
Post Chhadvel Korde,
Taluka Sakri, Dist Dhule.
33) Shri. Sakharam Dharma Thakur,
At - Post Waghadi,
Taluka Sindkheda,
District Dhule.
34) Shri. Atmaram Nana Mistri,
At - Post Taluka - Dist. Dhule.
ig ..PETITIONERS
VERSUS
1) State of Maharashtra
2) Superintending Krishi Agriculture
Officer, Nasik Division, Nashik.
3) The Divn. Soil Conservation Officer,
Dhule, Sakri Road, Dhule.
4) Shri V.V. Mangrulkar,
Presiding Officer of Labour Court,
Dhule.
5) Shri. S.V. Vitkar,
Member,
Industrial Court, Nasik. ..RESPONDENTS
...
Advocate for Petitioners : Shri S.B.Talekar
AGP for Respondents 1 to 3 : Shri P.N.Kutti
Advocate for Respondents 4 & 5 : Deleted.
...
CORAM : RAVINDRA V. GHUGE, J.
Dated: September 15, 2016
...
WP/2160/1996
ORAL JUDGMENT :-
1. Respondent Nos.4 and 5 are the learned Presiding Officers of
the Labour Court and the Industrial Court, who have been arrayed by
name. They are not necessary parties to the proceeding and
therefore, respondents 4 and 5 stand deleted.
2. The petitioners have challenged the common judgment of the
Industrial Court dated 13.6.1993 by which, the Revision Petitions filed
by the respondent / establishment have been allowed and the
judgments of the Labour Court, allowing the complaints of the
petitioners and granting them reinstatement with continuity in
service and full backwages, have been set aside.
3. This petition was admitted on 14.3.1995 and interim relief was
refused to the petitioners.
4. I have heard Shri Talekar, learned Advocate for the petitioners
at length. Grievance is that all the petitioners had succeeded before
the Labour Court and their complaints were allowed. The
conclusions of the Labour Court amount to findings on facts and the
Industrial Court could not have overturned such findings under it's
limited revisional jurisdiction under Section 44 of the MRTU and PULP
Act, 1971.
WP/2160/1996
5. It is strenuously submitted that each of the petitioners had
worked for more than one and half years. While terminating their
services, Section 25F of the ID Act was not complied with. The
closure of the Scheme under the Employment Guarantee Scheme
("EGS") cannot give a right to the respondent to terminate the
services of the petitioners. Once it is established that Section 25F is
violated, the Labour Court rightly granted reinstatement with
continuity and full backwages.
6. Shri Talekar has painstakingly taken this Court through the
judgments delivered by the Labour Court, by which the complaints
were allowed. He, therefore, submits that the Industrial Court,
could not have interpreted the evidence differently and could not
have set aside the judgments of the Labour Court.
7. Shri Talekar, therefore, prays for quashing of the impugned
judgment of the Industrial Court with heavy costs to be imposed on
the respondents.
8. Learned AGP appearing on behalf of respondents 1 to 3, has
supported the impugned judgment.
9. I have considered the submissions of the learned Advocates
WP/2160/1996
and have gone through the voluminous record available.
10. It is trite law that merely because a litigant has completed 240
days in continuous employment, would not necessarily lead to an
order of reinstatement, much less, with continuity in service and full
backwages. The petitioners in this case have worked in between 12
months to 18 months in between February 1986 till September 1987.
None of the litigating sides are in a position to state, as to whether
the petitioners are in employment today. This petition is pending
final hearing for twenty years.
11. The Industrial Court has considered the record and proceedings
and has rightly come to a conclusion that merely on account of
completion of 240 days, an order of reinstatement in the facts and
circumstances of the case would be unjustified. It has considered
the oral evidence of the parties and has concluded that though
initially the petitioners were not working on EGS, since there was
scarcity of work, they were given work under the EGS. It is well
settled that employees working on EGS cannot claim reliefs under the
the Maharashtra Recognition of Trade Unions and Prevention of Unfair
Labour Practices Act, 1971 ("the said Act ") or reliefs in the nature of
reinstatement or continued employment.
12. Considering the above situation, the Industrial Court, in order
WP/2160/1996
to make some work available to the petitioners, has passed the
following order:-
" The Revision Petitions allowed.
The impugned order dated 12.6.1991 in Complaint (ULP)
No.198/89 and alike others is hereby set aside. However, the
revision petition is hereby directed to issue orders to the
remaining 14 persons as per their chart Sr. No.1 below
application dated 18.6.1993 within a month.
Similarly the revision Petitioner would give an
opportunity to those 3 persons who did not join inspite of the
orders by sending fresh letters to join within a moth's time.
As and when the 15 others resume within same time
limit, they be allowed on employment. Even if some are left
out the revision petitioner is given a further direction to
consider them preferentially in case vacancies arise in near
future."
13. As such, upon evaluating the evidence on record, the Industrial
Court has rightly arrived at a conclusion that as some of the
petitioners have joined duties upon being reappointed, work may be
made available to them in terms of the directions reproduced above.
14. Hence, I do not find that the impugned judgment of the
Industrial Court could be termed as perverse or erroneous so as to
WP/2160/1996
cause an interference in the supervisory jurisdiction of this Court.
15. The petition being devoid of merits is, therefore, dismissed.
Rule is discharged.
( RAVINDRA V. GHUGE, J. )
...
akl/d
