Bombay High Court
The State Of Mah And Ors vs Dnyaneshwar Jagnath Garud Died ... on 22 September, 2016
Bench: R.V. Ghuge
WP/3225/1995
1
IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE OF BOMBAY
BENCH AT AURANGABAD
WRIT PETITION NO. 3255 OF 1995
1. The State of Maharashtra,
Social Forestry, Mantralaya,
Bombay 32 through Secretary.
2. The Deputy Director,
Social Forestry,
Ahmednagar Division,
Sudke Mala, Ahmednagar.
3. The Social Forestry,
Pathardi, Ahmednagar. ..Petitioner
Versus
Dnyaneshwar Jagnath Garud
deceased and substituted by
Smt. Bebitai Dnyaneshwar Garud,
Age 33 years, at and post
Jod Mohoj, Taluka Pathardi,
District Ahmednagar. ..Respondent
...
Special Advocate for Petitioners : Shri Sharad S. Shinde
h/f Shri V.V.Bhavthankar a/w Shri P.N.Kutti, AGP
Advocate for Respondent : Shri P.V. Barde
...
CORAM : RAVINDRA V. GHUGE, J.
Dated: September 22, 2016
...
ORAL JUDGMENT:-
1. The petitioner department is aggrieved by the judgment
of the Industrial Court dated 18.1.1995, vide which, the original
WP/3225/1995
complainant Dnyaneshwar Garud is granted permanency and
benefits incidental thereto. This Court, while admitting this
petition, has stayed the impugned judgment. The original
complainant has passed away on 3.7.2001. His wife has been
brought on record.
2. Respondent No.2 is the Industrial Court and hence, stands
deleted.
3. I have considered the strenuous submissions of the learned
Advocate for the petitioner and on behalf of the sole
respondent.
4. The issue is as regards the deceased complainant having
completed 240 days in continuous employment. Though the
learned Advocate for the petitioner has vehemently criticized
the impugned judgment, I find that the petitioner had filed a
chart at Exhibit C-9/1 in order to state the number of days
worked by the deceased employee. Since the said chart had
been submitted by the petitioner, the Industrial Court has come
to a conclusion on the basis of the same that the deceased had
worked for 131 days in 1986, 198 days in 1987, 281 days in 1988,
WP/3225/1995
324 days in 1989, 356 days in 1990 and 58 days in 1991. It is,
therefore, apparent that the deceased had put in 240 days in a
calendar year of 12 months from the date of reference, which is
May 1991. Consequentially, it is established on the basis of the
petitioner's record that the deceased had worked for 240 days in
four years.
5. The seniority list was produced at Exhibit U-14/1. The
name of the deceased appeared at Sr. No.11 in the said list.
6. The petitioner does not appear to have raised an issue as
to whether Social Forestry is an 'industry' or not. I am not
inclined to consider the said issue after 25 years of litigation in
between the parties and more so, when the original complainant
has passed away.
7. Considering the above, I deem it proper to grant
compensation to the widow of the deceased in the light of the
ratio laid down by the Honourable Supreme Court in the
following four judgments:-
1. Assistant Engineer, Rajasthan State Agriculture
WP/3225/1995
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] and
4. Jagbir Singh Vs. Haryana State Agriculture Marketing
Board [(2009) 15 SCC 327].
8. Honourable Apex Court has held that an amount of
Rs.30,000/- per year of service would be appropriate
compensation in lieu of reinstatement or continued
employment.
9. As such, this petition is partly allowed. Considering the
subsequent events and the death of the original complainant,
the petitioner shall pay compensation of Rs.1,20,000/- (Rs. One
Lakh Twenty Thousand only/-) to the widow of the respondent
as quantified compensation for all benefits flowing from his
employment and the judgment of the Industrial Court.
10. Said amount shall be paid by the petitioner within a
WP/3225/1995
period of twelve weeks from today, failing which, the said
amount shall carry interest at the rate of 6% p.a. and the said
interest shall be recovered from the salary of the officer of the
petitioner who is responsible for the delay caused in making the
payment. The interest amount shall not be paid from the State
exchequer and by fixing the responsibility on the officer who has
caused the delay, shall be payable from his salary account.
11.
Rule is made partly absolute in above terms.
( RAVINDRA V. GHUGE, J. )
...
akl/d
