Bombay High Court
Deputy Conservator Of Forest, ... vs Nana Eknath Badhe on 27 September, 2016
Bench: R.V. Ghuge
WP/9137/2014
1
IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE OF BOMBAY
BENCH AT AURANGABAD\
WRIT PETITION NO. 9137 OF 2014
Deputy Conservator of Forest,
Vanvirtta, Osmanpura,
Aurangabad. ..Petitioner
Versus
Shri Nana Eknath Badhe,
At Borgaon, Post Ambelohal,
Tq. Gangapur, Dist. Aurangabad. ..Respondent
ig ...
Special Advocate for Petitioner : Shri Gaddime Arvind N.
a/w AGP Shri Kutti P.N.
Advocate for Respondent : Shri Undre V.S.
...
CORAM : RAVINDRA V. GHUGE, J.
Dated: September 27, 2016
...
ORAL JUDGMENT :-
1. Heard learned Advocates for the respective parties.
2. Rule.
3. By consent, Rule is made returnable forthwith and the petition
is taken up for final disposal.
4. The petitioner is aggrieved by the award dated 26.7.2011, by
which, Reference (IDA) No.37 of 1993 has been partly allowed and
WP/9137/2014
the respondent has been granted reinstatement, with continuity of
service. Backwages are denied.
5. Learned Advocate for the petitioner strenuously contends that
the respondent was never working on any scheme or project of the
Forest Department. He was not working from 1981. He has worked for
328 days in 1988, 268 days in 1989 and 310 days in 1990, as a daily
wage labourer. He was working under Employment Guarantee
Scheme ("EGS") for protection of the plantation from cattle. He is
out of employment from 1991.
6. It is further submitted that the petitioner led oral and
documentary evidence before the Labour Court. It was pointed out
that the petitioner is not an "industry" and the respondent was
working purely on EGS. He submits, on the basis of the record, that
no documentary evidence was led by the petitioner and hence, the
said observation in paragraph No.10 of the impugned judgment. He,
however, submits that the daily wages of the respondent were paid
from the EGS fund by the office of the Collector.
7. Learned Advocate for the respondent has strenuously defended
the impugned award. He submits that the chart supplied by the
Range Forest Officer (EGS), Gangapur, would indicate that the
respondent was working continuously for three years. He tenders a
WP/9137/2014
copy of the statement duly signed and attested by the Range Forest
Officer (EGS), Gangapur in support of his contention. He further
submits that the respondent is in need of employment and is willing
to report for duties.
8. There is no dispute that though the petitioner filed a Written
Statement and led oral evidence before the Labour Court, it did not
produce the documents to support it's contention that the respondent
was working on EGS.
ig The Chart tendered across the Bar by the
learned Advocate for the respondent is marked as Exhibit "X" for
identification. The RFO (EGS) acknowledges that the respondent had
worked continuously for three years, though it is contended that he
was working under the EGS.
9. The respondent is out of employment for 25 years after having
worked for three years. In similar circumstances, the Honourable
Apex Court has concluded that in cases of short tenure of
employment, followed by long duration of unemployment, granting
reinstatement with continuity would be impracticable. It concluded
in the following four judgments, that compensation at the rate of
Rs.30,000/- per year of service, put in by the workman, would be
appropriate compensation in lieu of reinstatement:-
1. Assistant Engineer, Rajasthan State Agriculture
Marketing Board, Sub-Division, Kota Vs. Mohanlal
WP/9137/2014
[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].
10. In the light of the above, this petition is partly allowed. The
impugned award dated 26.7.2011 is modified and the petitioner is
directed to pay compensation of Rs.90,000/- to the respondent
within a period of twelve weeks from today, in lieu of reinstatement
and continuity of service. In the event, the said compensation is not
paid within the time frame, the petitioner shall pay interest @ 6% per
annum on the said amount from August, 2011 and the interest
amount shall be paid from the salaries of the officers, who may have
caused the delay in complying with this order. The interest shall not
be paid from the State exchequer.
11. Rule is made partly absolute in the above terms.
( RAVINDRA V. GHUGE, J. )
...
akl/d
