Bombay High Court
Ramesh Raghunath Chavan vs State Of Maha on 16 September, 2016
Bench: R.V. Ghuge
1
IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE OF BOMBAY
BENCH AT AURANGABAD
WRIT PETITION NO.5504 OF 1995
WITH
CIVIL APPLICATION NO.6597 of 2003
1. The Executive Engineer,
Public Works Department,
Ahmednagar,
2. The State of Maharashtra -- PETITIONERS
VERSUS
Ramesh Raghunath Chavan,
Adult, R/o Marhal (Bk.)
Tq.Sinner, Dist.Nasik -- RESPONDENT
Mr.P.N.Kutti, AGP for the petitioners.
Mr.A.S.Shelke, Advocate for the respondent.
( CORAM : RAVINDRA V. GHUGE, J.)
DATE : 16/09/2016
ORAL JUDGMENT :
1. The petitioner is aggrieved by the award dated 22/12/1993
delivered by the Labour Court by which Ref.(IDA) No.65/1989 has
been allowed and the respondent is granted reinstatement on his
post of "Majdoor" and with back wages @ 18.50 per day from the date
of termination till the date of the award.
2. By a detailed order, the impugned award was stayed. The Civil
khs/SEPT.2016/5504-d
Application No.6597/2003 filed by the respondent praying for last
drawn wages u/s 17-B of the I.D.Act is still undecided.
3. I have considered the submissions of the learned AGP on behalf
of the petitioners and Mr.Shelke on behalf of the respondent
/employee. With their assistance, I have gone through the record
available.
4. The contention of the petitioners before the Labour Court was
that the respondent was working on the Employment Guarantee
Scheme. In between 01/05/1985 till 01/05/1987, he was not working
from 01/07/1985 to 15/05/1986. A statement at Exhibit C-3 was
produced by the Deputy Engineer of the Public Works Department
indicating that the total days on which the respondent had worked
were 193. Over a period of 2 years, his total number of days of work
were 245.
5. Learned AGP submits that when the respondent had not
worked for 240 days in continuous employment in any given calendar
year, he could not have been reinstated in service. He has been out
of employment for the past 29 years. The impugned award is
perverse and deserves to be quashed.
khs/SEPT.2016/5504-d
6. Mr.Shelke submits that it was proved before the Labour Court
that the respondent was not working as a Mustering Assistant but
was working on daily wages. He was a "Majdoor". Mr.Dighe and
Mr.Badhe, two similar majdoors, who were junior to the respondent,
were found to be in service in August and September 1987.
Considering the violation of Section 25-G of the I.D.Act, the Labour
Court has allowed the reference.
7. Mr.Shelke strenuously submits that in the facts of this case
and considering that the respondent desperately needs employment
and is only 51 years of age today, the order of reinstatement be
maintained. The respondent is willing to waive back wages. He,
therefore, prays for the dismissal of the petition and in the
alternative, modification in the impugned award in order to sustain
reinstatement and continuity of service.
8. Having considered the submissions of the learned Advocates, I
find from the impugned award that besides the statement at Exhibit
C-3 produced by the petitioner showing number of days worked,
there was no evidence before the Labour Court to conclude that the
respondent was working continuously or had put in 240 days in
khs/SEPT.2016/5504-d
continuous employment prior to the date of reference which is
01/05/1987. The Labour Court has relied upon the explanation put
forth by the petitioner that in between July 1986 to April 1987, the
respondent had worked for 240 days. Exhibit C-3 placed on record
indicates that he had put in 193 days from July 1986 till February
1987. The Labour Court concluded that the respondent appears to
have worked for 52 days between March 1987 and April 1987. Based
on such conclusion, it held that the respondent had completed 240
days.
9. Despite the strenuous submission of Mr.Shelke that 2
majdoors, who were junior to the respondent, had worked in August
and September 1987 and as such the petitioner had violated Section
25-G, I am unable to accept the said submission. In order to prove
violation of Section 25-G, a mere statement is not enough. It needs
to be proved through documentary evidence that juniors have been
retained in service and have continued in employment. It also needs
to be proved that the concerned employees are in fact juniors to the
claimant. In my view, the Labour Court could not have drawn such a
conclusion based on oral submissions.
10. Notwithstanding the above, it cannot be ignored that the
khs/SEPT.2016/5504-d
respondent had worked over a period of 24 months. The fact that he
had not worked in between July 1985 to May 1986 would indicate
that he may have worked for about 15 to 16 months. It also cannot
be ignored that he is not in employment for the past 29 years.
11. In the above backdrop, I deem it proper to quantify
compensation @ Rs. 30,000/- per year of service put in by the
respondent by relying upon the ratio laid down by the Hon'ble
Supreme Court in the following cases :-
1. Assistant Engineer, Rajasthan State Agriculture Marketing
Board, Sub Division, Kota Vs. Mohanlal, 2013 LLR 1009,
2. Assistant Engineer, Rajasthan Development Corporation
and another Vs. Gitam Singh, (2013) 5 SCC 136,
3. BSNL Vs. Man Singh, (2012) 1 SCC 558,
4. Jagbir Singh Vs. Haryana State Agriculture Marketing
Board, (2009) 15 SCC 327.
12. In the result, this petition is partly allowed. The impugned
award dated 22/12/1993 stands modified and replaced by a direction
to the petitioner to pay an amount of Rs.60,000/- to the respondent
by way of quantified compensation in lieu of reinstatement,
continuity and back wages within a period of 3 (three) months from
today, failing which the said amount shall carry interest @ 6% from
khs/SEPT.2016/5504-d
December 1993. If the abovesaid compensation is not paid to the
respondent, the petitioner / department shall fix the responsibility
on the concerned Officer who may cause a delay and the amount of
interest shall be recovered from his salary to be paid to the
respondent.
13. Rule is made partly absolute in the above terms. Pending civil
application would not survive and is, therefore, dismissed.
( RAVINDRA V. GHUGE, J.)
khs/SEPT.2016/5504-d
