Bombay High Court
Executive Director,Marathwada ... vs Chandrashekhar Deshmukh & Others on 20 September, 2016
Bench: R.V. Ghuge
1
IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE OF BOMBAY
BENCH AT AURANGABAD
WRIT PETITION NO.5648 OF 1995
1. The Executive Director,
Marathwada Ceramic Complex Ltd.,
Plot No.A-7, MIDC Area, Dhanegaon,
Nanded,
2. Managing Director,
Marathwada D.C.
Vikas Bhawan,
Dr.Rajendra Prasad Marg,
Aurangabad -- PETITIONERS
VERSUS
1. Chandra Shekar Deshmukh,
C/o Shivling Setkar,
N-D-2, Kranti Chowk,
CIDCO, Nanded,
2. Mr.V.R.L.V. Raghawalu
R/o Dummetiwari Street,
Ward No.1 Rajmehandi,
Dist.Godavari (A.P.),
3. Shri Gorakhnath,
R/o Gramshivdhara,
Post Rudrapur, Korva,
Dist.Devria (U.P.)
4. B.C.Nayak,
R/o c/o Chdnra Shekar Deshmukh,
C/o Shivling Setkar, N-D-2,
Kranti Chowk, Cidco, Nanded,
5. R.Raghunath,
R/o Grma Shibdhara,
Post Rudraphur Korva,
Dist.Devria (U.P.)
khs/SEPT.2016/5648-d
::: Uploaded on - 21/09/2016 ::: Downloaded on - 23/09/2016 00:54:31 :::
2
6. Shri D.U.More,
At and Post : Mop, Tq.Risod,
Dist. Akola,
7. Shri N.Madhya,
R/o Gram Kesarpada,
Dist.Gajap (Orisa),
8. Shri K.Papayya,
R/o Gram Janikesarpada,
Dist.Shrikhalam (A.P.),
9. Shri M.Shrihari,
R/o At Kahigudam, Post :
Gopalpuram, Tq.Yellur,
Dist.Godavari (A.P.)
10. Shri B.Balaji,
R/o Gram Kesarpada,
Dist.Gajam (Orisa) -- RESPONDENTS
Mr.A.D.Soman h/f Mr.D.V.Soman, Advocate for the petitioner.
Mr.V.D.Wanjare, Advocate for respondent No.1 (Absent)
Petition is dismissed against respondent Nos.2, 3, 4, 5, 8 and 9.
Respondent No.7 served.
Petition is abated against respondent Nos.6 and 10.
( CORAM : RAVINDRA V. GHUGE, J.)
DATE : 20/09/2016
ORAL JUDGMENT :
1. On 15/09/2016, this Court had passed the following order :-
"1. Learned Advocate for the petitioner and respondent No.1 are
absent. Respondent No.7, though served, has not entered an
appearance through an Advocate or in person and is a resident
khs/SEPT.2016/5648-d
of Orissa. The petition is dismissed as against respondent Nos.
2 and 3 on 15.4.2008, as against respondent Nos. 4 and 5 on
25.8.2008, as against respondent No.8 on 15.4.2008 and as
against respondent No.9 on 25.8.2008. The petition has abated
as against deceased respondent Nos. 6 and 9.
2. S.O. 20.9.2016 for passing order on dismissal."
2. None appears for respondent No.1 and 7. Matter is of 1995.
3.
On 13/03/1996, while admitting the matter, this Court had
passed the following order and had granted interim relief :-
"Heard Shri D.V.Soman, learned Advocate for the petitioner.
Shri.V.D.Vanjare, learned Advocate for respondent No.1, has
filed caveat.
2. Rule. Shri.V.D.Vanjare has waived notice for respondent
No.1. Notice to remaining nine respondents. Their addresses
should be furnished by the petitioner within a week from today.
3. It is submitted by learned Advocate for the petitioner that the
petitioner company is closed since last four years. Learned
Advocate also read over writing duly signed by respondents by
which each of them sought voluntary retirement. Their dues as
mentioned in the said writing are also paid to them. In view of
the fact that their dues are duly paid, interim relief is granted in
terms of prayer clause (C) till final disposal of the writ petition."
4. As such, this petition survives only with regard to respondent
khs/SEPT.2016/5648-d
No.1 Chandra Shekar Deshmukh and respondent No.7 N.Madhya.
5. Mr.Soman, learned Advocate for the petitioner, while criticizing
the impugned judgment dated 30/06/1995 delivered by the
Industrial Court, Jalna submits that respondent No.1 as well as
respondent No.7 had opted for voluntary retirement scheme on
20/02/1995. Respondent No.1 was paid Rs.36,699.60 pursuant to
his acceptance of his VRS on 15/10/1994. Similarly, respondent
No.7 was paid Rs.37,197.15 as the VRS amount pursuant to his
acceptance of VRS by application dated 10/10/1994.
6. This Court, while granting interim relief to the petitioner, had
noted that the petitioner / Establishment was shut down for almost 4
years and these respondents had accepted VRS.
7. I have considered the submissions of the petitioner and have
gone through the impugned judgment.
8. These respondents had claimed parity in wages with skilled
Class A workers on the ground that they have been classified as
skilled Class B workers. Though the petitioner did not lead any
evidence to substantiate the classification in between these two set of
khs/SEPT.2016/5648-d
workers, there was no material placed before the Industrial Court by
the respondents to indicate the difference in the wages. The group,
which was classified as skilled Class A workers, was not arrayed
before the Industrial Court. Barring two charts prepared by the
original complainants, there was no material placed before the
Industrial Court to conclude as regards the nature of work being
performed by the two groups and as to whether the work performed
by these two groups was identical so as to invoke the principle of
"equal wages - equal work".
9. The settlement applicable to the workers which was signed
between the Marathwada Ceramic Complex Workers Union and the
petitioner though indicates the classification in between Class A and
Class B workers, in my view, parity in wages could be sought only on
the basis of the same work being done by both group of workers. In
the absence of such evidence, the Industrial Court could not have
allowed the complaint only for the reason that the Management did
not lead evidence.
10. Considering the above and taking into account the fact that
respondent Nos.1 and 7 have opted for VRS, which was not brought
to the notice of the Industrial Court, this petition is partly allowed
khs/SEPT.2016/5648-d
only as against respondent No.1 Chandra Shekar Deshmukh and
respondent No.7 N.Madhya. The impugned judgment is set aside to
the extent of these two respondents.
11. Rule is made partly absolute in the above terms.
ig ( RAVINDRA V. GHUGE, J.)
khs/SEPT.2016/5648-d
