Bombay High Court
Nagnath R.Jagirdar vs State Of Mah.& Ors.S on 29 September, 2016
Bench: R.V. Ghuge
*1* 227.wp.2960.96.921.97.2965.96.162.97.con
IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY
BENCH AT AURANGABAD
WRIT PETITION NO. 2960 OF 1996
Smt.Nagarabai w/o Nivrutti Veer,
Age : 36 years, Occupation : Labour,
R/o Beed, C/o Trade Union Centre,
Bashirganj, Beed, District Beed.
...PETITIONER
-VERSUS-
1 The Chief Officer,
Nagar Parishad, Beed,
District Beed.
2 The Presiding Officer,
The Labour Court,
Shimala Building,
Osmanpura, Aurangabad.
3 The State of Maharashtra.
Mantralaya, Mumbai.
(Petition stands dismissed as against
Respondent Nos.2 and 3 for
non payment of Bhatta).
...RESPONDENTS
WITH
WRIT PETITION NO.921 OF 1997
The Chief Officer,
Municipal Council, Beed.
...PETITIONER
-VERSUS-
Nagrabai w/o Nivrutti Veer,
Age : 36 years, Occupation : Labour,
R/o Beed, C/o Trade Union Centre,
::: Uploaded on - 04/10/2016 ::: Downloaded on - 05/10/2016 00:27:22 :::
*2* 227.wp.2960.96.921.97.2965.96.162.97.con
Bashirganj, Beed, Dist.Beed.
...RESPONDENT
AND
WRIT PETITION NO.2965 OF 1996
Smt.Dhrupatabai w/o Shrirang Khalage,
Age : 35 years, Occupation : Service,
R/o Beed, C/o Trade Union Center,
Bashirganj, Beed, Dist.Beed.
...PETITIONER
-VERSUS-
1 The Chief Officer,
Nagar Parishad, Beed,
District Beed.
2 Presiding Officer,
The Labour Court, Shimala
Building,
Osmanpura, Aurangabad.
3 The State of Maharashtra,
Mantralaya, Mumbai.
...RESPONDENTS
WITH
WRIT PETITION NO.162 OF 1997
Municipal Council, Beed.
Through it's Chief Officer.
...PETITIONER
-VERSUS-
Smt.Dhrupatabai w/o Shrirang Khalage,
Age : 35 years, Occupation : Service,
R/o Beed, C/o Trade Union Center,
Bashirganj, Beed, Dist.Beed.
...RESPONDENT
::: Uploaded on - 04/10/2016 ::: Downloaded on - 05/10/2016 00:27:22 :::
*3* 227.wp.2960.96.921.97.2965.96.162.97.con
...
Advocate for the Employees : Shri P.L.Shahane and Shri Parag Shahane.
AGP for Respondent/State : Shri P.N.Kutti.
Advocate for the Employer/ Municipal Council : Shri S.S.Thombre.
...
CORAM: RAVINDRA V. GHUGE, J.
DATE :- 29th September, 2016
Oral Judgment :
1 Respondent No.2 in Writ Petition No.2965/1996, being the
Presiding Officer of the Labour Court, stands deleted.
2 The Petitioner/ Employee in the first petition i.e. Writ Petition
No.2960/1996 has challenged the award of the Labour Court dated
15.03.1995 by which Reference (IDA) No.75/1989 filed by her was partly
allowed, but continuity in service and back wages have been denied. The
Respondent / Municipal Council in the first petition filed by the employee
is the Petitioner in the second petition i.e. Writ Petition No.921/1997, who
has challenged the entire award.
3 The third Writ Petition No.2965/1996 has been filed by
another employee identically placed as like the first employee. She has
challenged the award dated 08.03.1995 by which the Labour Court
allowed her Reference (IDA) No.63/1989, but refused continuity and full
*4* 227.wp.2960.96.921.97.2965.96.162.97.con
back wages. The Respondent in the third petition is the Petitioner in the
fourth petition i.e. Writ Petition No.162/1997.
4 In the light of the above, these petitions are taken up together
for hearing considering that the employees are identically situated and the
Employer/ Establishment is the same Municipal Council, Beed.
5 I have heard the strenuous submissions of Shri Shahane,
learned Advocate on behalf of both these employees and Shri Thombre,
learned Advocate on behalf of the Employer/ Establishment.
6 Notwithstanding the strenuous submissions of the learned
Advocates, the subsequent events that have occurred in between the
employees and the employer, render these four petitions of an academic
interest.
7 Shri Shahane has placed on record a compilation of five
pages, which the employees have acquired through their Union under the
Right to Information Act. Same are taken on record and marked
collectively as Exhibit X for identification.
8 It is apparent from Exhibit X that both these employees have
*5* 227.wp.2960.96.921.97.2965.96.162.97.con
been reinstated in service pursuant to the impugned awards by the order
dated 13.08.2002 and have been granted continuity of service from
01.01.1985 by recording that they would not claim the back wages. It is
on this condition that both the employees have reported for duties and are
presently in employment.
9 As such, the petitions filed by the Municipal Council/
Establishment i.e. Writ Petition Nos.921/1997 and 162/1997 need not be
entertained since the Employees have now settled in employment over the
past about 14 years and have been granted continuity from 01.01.1985.
10 Notwithstanding the above, even if the petitions filed by the
employees are to be entertained, I do not find any merit in the
submissions of Shri Shahane for the reason that there is no evidence
before the Labour Court as regards whether, these employees were
unemployed during the pendency of the reference cases, whether, they
attempted to acquire alternate employment and whether, they failed to get
any such employment.
11 The Honourable Supreme Court in the matter of J.K.
Synthetics Limited vs. K.P.Agrawal, 2007(2) SCC 433, has concluded in
paragraphs 18 and 19 that the employee claiming back wages must at
*6* 227.wp.2960.96.921.97.2965.96.162.97.con
least step into the witness box to lead evidence that he had attempted to
acquire alternate employment and had failed and hence continued to be
unemployed.
12 In the light of the above and considering Exhibit X, the two
petitions filed by the Municipal Council i.e. Writ Petition Nos.921/1997
and 162/1997 are disposed of. Rule is discharged.
The two petitions filed by the employees i.e. Writ Petition
Nos.2960/1996 and 2965/1996 are dismissed. Rule is discharged.
kps (RAVINDRA V. GHUGE, J.)
