Rangnath Mahadu Katore And Others vs The Deputy Forest Conservator, ...
2016 Latest Caselaw 5632 Bom

                                        1




                                                                      
             IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE OF BOMBAY   
                         BENCH AT AURANGABAD




                                              
                      WRIT PETITION NO.3433 OF 2013 WITH
                    CIVIL APPLICATION NOS.7989 OF 2013 AND
                       CIVIL APPLICATION NO.4932 OF 2014




                                             
    1.     Rangnath Mahadu Katore,
           Age-39 years, Occu-Nil,

    2.     Somnath S/o Namdeo Pathave,




                                       
           Age-41 years, Occu-Nil,

    3.     Navnath Shankar Kale,
                              
           Age-35 years, Occu-Nil,

    4.     Manohar S/o Soma Ughade,
                             
           Age-41 years, Occu-Nil,

           All R/o Deothan, Tq.Akole,
           Dist. Ahmednagar,
      


    5.     Kailas S/o Bhagwat Wackchaure,
           Age-48 years, Occu-Nil,
   



           R/o Virgaon, Tq. Akole,
           Dist. Ahmednagar,

    6.     Tukaram S/o Jagannath Mundhe,





           Age-38 years, Occu-Nil,
           R/o Titavi, Tq. Akole,
           Dist. Ahmednagar,

    7.     Narayan S/o Rama Bangar,





           Age-35 years, Occu-Nil,
           R/o Babhulvandi, Post Deogaon,
           Tq. Akole, Dist. Ahmednagar             -- PETITIONERS

    (The members of Ahmednagar District Forest
    Workers Union, Trade Union Centre, 
    Near Tahasil Office, Sangamner,
    Dist. Ahmednagar)

    VERSUS

    khs/SEPT.2016/3433-d




     ::: Uploaded on - 30/09/2016             ::: Downloaded on - 05/10/2016 00:17:18 :::
                                             2




                                                                             
    The Deputy Forest Conservator,
    Forest Division, Van Bhavan,




                                                     
    Nagar-Aurangabad Road,
    Ahmednagar,
    Tq. and Dist. Ahmednagar                              -- RESPONDENT

WITH

WRIT PETITION NO.3490 OF 2013

Sharad s/o Kisan Ghadge, Age-40 years, Occu-Nil,

R/o Deothan, Tq.Akole, Dist. Ahmednagar (The member of Ahmednagar District Forest

Workers Union, Trade Union Centre, Near Tahasil Office, Sangamner, Dist. Ahmednagar) -- PETITIONER

VERSUS

The Deputy Forest Conservator, Forest Division, Van Bhavan,

Nagar-Aurangabad Road, Ahmednagar,

Tq. and Dist. Ahmednagar -- RESPONDENT

Mr.R.D.Bhalerao, Advocate for the petitioners. Mr.U.K.Patil, Special Counsel with Mr.P.N.Kutti, AGP for

respondent/State.

( CORAM : RAVINDRA V. GHUGE, J.) DATE : 28/09/2016

ORAL JUDGMENT :

1. Rule. Rule made returnable forthwith and heard finally by the

consent of the parties.

2. I have heard the learned Advocates for the respective sides at

khs/SEPT.2016/3433-d

length. There are 7 petitioners in the 1 st writ petition and one in the

2nd writ petition. By civil Application Nos.7989/2013 and 4932/2014,

Arun Rangnath Kale and Sunil Ramnath Sonawane, who were

original complainants before the Labour Court in Complaint (ULP)

No.140/1997, are sought to be added as petitioner Nos. 8 and 9

respectively. For the reasons set out in both the civil applications,

they are allowed and Arun and Sunil are permitted to be arrayed as

petitioner Nos. 8 and 9 in the 1st writ petition.

3. The Ahmednagar District Forest Workers Union was

representing these 10 petitioners alongwith few others. Since the

Union has stopped espousing their cause, these 10 workers are

before this Court as petitioners.

4. By judgment dated 13/06/2008, the Labour Court has partly

allowed the complaint by allowing the claim of one worker namely

Balu Dighe at Sr.No.20 and dismissed the complaint as against 19

workers out of which 10 are before this Court. The Union as well as

the Deputy Conservator of Forest preferred Revision (ULP)

No.15/2009 and 40/2008 respectively for challenging the judgment of

the Labour Court. By judgment dated 05/07/2011, the judgment of

the Labour Court dated 13/06/2008 was quashed and set aside and

khs/SEPT.2016/3433-d

Complaint (ULP) No.140/1997 was remitted to the Labour Court for a

decision afresh.

5. By judgment dated 23/12/2011, the Labour Court partly

allowed the complaint and granted Rs.6,000/- as retrenchment

compensation to all the 20 workers represented by the Union. By

judgment dated 01/03/2013, Revision (ULP) No.32/2012 filed by the

Union was dismissed.

6. It appears that the respondent / department did not file

adequate record before the Labour Court to establish that these 10

workers were working on EGS. If it is concluded that they are

working on EGS, they would not stand to gain any relief from the

Labour Court.

7. In the first judgment delivered by the Labour Court dated

13/06/2008, the documents produced by the Forest Department at

Exh.C-4, C-10 and C-11 indicated the names of the workers, the

period of work and the activity for which they were given work. These

documents were prepared by the D.F.O. Akole (EGS). The said

judgment was set aside by the Industrial Court on 05/07/2011. After

remand, the Labour Court has then delivered the judgment dated

khs/SEPT.2016/3433-d

23/12/2011 by which the petitioners are granted Rs.6,000/- as

compensation.

8. There is no dispute that besides oral statements, the

petitioners have not relied on any such evidence adduced by them in

the form of documents which would indicate completion of 240 days

in a calendar year. They have wholly relied upon C-4, C-10 and C-11.

The Labour Court has interpreted those documents by concluding

that though these documents indicate that the petitioners were

working on EGS, the Department should have brought some more

documents in the form of their registration as EGS employees.

9. In my view, when the petitioners have not produced any

evidence and have relied upon the documents produced by the

Department on the basis of which they have attempted to build their

case, the said documents cannot be selectively utilized. The Labour

Court should have considered the overall effect of these documents

as a piece of evidence. When the list of workers is maintained by the

D.F.O. (EGS), when their number of days worked are recorded by the

D.F.O. (EGS) and when all these documents are produced by the

D.F.O. (EGS) indicating that they were retained as employees on EGS,

the Labour Court could not have ignored this fact that these

khs/SEPT.2016/3433-d

petitioners were in fact working on EGS. Their complaints, therefore,

should have been rejected. Instead, the Labour Court has granted

Rs.6,000/- as compensation to all the 20 workers.

10. The Industrial Court, by the impugned judgment dated

01/03/2013, has sustained the said findings. It is not disputed that

Rs.6,000/- as were payable to these petitioners in January 2012,

have still not been paid to them considering that the petitioners

themselves had challenged the judgments of the Labour Court as well

as the Industrial Court.

11. In the light of the above, though these petitions deserve to be

dismissed. Since the amount of Rs.6,000/- was payable in January

2012, I am adding the interest component @ simple interest of 3%

and quantifying the compensation at Rs.10,000/- for the 9 petitioners

in this petition and the sole petitioner in the second petition.

12. In the light of the above, both these petitions are dismissed.

However, the respondent is directed to pay Rs.10,000/- to these 10

petitioners within a period of 16 weeks from today, failing which

additional interest @ 6% p.a. shall be computed from the date of this

order. Needless to state, these directions are subject to the said

khs/SEPT.2016/3433-d

amounts still not having been paid to the petitioners.

13. Rule is discharged.

( RAVINDRA V. GHUGE, J.)

khs/SEPT.2016/3433-d