Bombay High Court
Anand Panna Pawar vs Divn. Controller, M.S.R.T.C. & ... on 6 April, 2017
Bench: Ravi K. Deshpande
1
wp3677.07.odt
IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY
NAGPUR BENCH, NAGPUR
Writ Petition No.3677 of 2007
Shri Anand s/o Panna Pawar,
Aged about 35 years,
Occupation - Nil,
R/o Bhangipura, Digras,
District Yavatmal. ... Petitioner
Versus
1. Divisional Controller,
M.S.R.T. Corporation,
Division Office, Arni Road,
Yavatmal.
2. The State of Maharashtra,
through its Commissioner of Labour
(Additional),
Nagpur Region, Nagpur. ... Respondents
Shri D.C.R. Mishra, Advocate for Petitioner.
None for Respondent No.1.
Shri K.R. Lule, Assistant Government Pleader for Respondent
No.2.
Coram : R.K. Deshpande, J.
Date : 6th April, 2017
Oral Judgment :
1. The Labour Court has answered the reference in respect
wp3677.07.odt
of termination in the negative on 16-2-2007, in Reference
(I.D.A.) No.7/2003. Hence, the employee is before this Court in
this writ petition.
2. On 29-4-2003, the Additional Commissioner of Labour,
Nagpur passed an order, making reference of the dispute to the
Labour Court, the relevant portion of which, is reproduced
below :
" Now, therefore, in exercise of the powers conferred by
Clause (c) of Sub-section (1) of Section 10 read with
Sub-section (5) of Section 12 of the Industrial Disputes
Act, 1947, as delegated in the manner aforesaid, the
Additional Commissioner of Labour, Nagpur is pleased to
refer the said dispute, for adjudication to the Labour Court
at Yavatmal constituted under Government Notification
No.IDA-1098/9112/(1491)/LAB.3, dated 6.2.1999.
SCHEDULE
Shri A.P. Pawar whose services have been terminated
from the employment of M/s. Divisional Controller,
M.S.R.T.C., Yavatmal should be reinstated in service with
payment of full back wages and continuity of service, with
wp3677.07.odt
effect from 1/1/2001."
In para 9 of the award passed by the Labour Court, it is
held as under :
"9. ... Thus, it can be said that, before the conciliation
officer, the applicant party No.2 when appeared before
him claimed that, his services were terminated w.e.f.
15.1.2001 or 1.1.2001 and now it is tried to prove that,
his services were terminated w.e.f. 1.7.2001. Thus, when
the party No.2 himself stated and tried to prove that, he
worked beyond 15.1.2001 and also has received
compensation on daily wages. Thus, it cannot be proved
that, his services were terminated w.e.f. 1.1.2001 or
15.1.2001. Therefore, party No.2 has to submit an
application before the government or Commissioner of
Labour (Additional), Nagpur for change in date mentioned
in the reference for issuance of corrigendum in schedule,
but in absence of the same, the services of the party No.2
were terminated by the party No.1 w.e.f. 15.1.2001 or
1.1.2001 illegally cannot be proved and thus, issue is
answered in negative."
wp3677.07.odt
3. It is thus apparent that on 1-1-2001, the employee was
in service and getting salary. He was not terminated on that
date. Even on 15-1-2001, he was in service as per his own
admission and he received the compensation on daily wages. In
view of sub-section (4) of Section 10 of the Industrial Disputes
Act, 1947, the view taken by the Labour Court cannot be faulted,
as the Labour Court is not competent to go behind the order of
reference.
4. The learned counsel for the petitioner has relied upon
the decision of the Division Bench decision in the case of
Sheshrao Bhaduji Hatwar v. P.O., First Labour Court & Others,
reported in 1992-I-LLJ-672, to urge that even if reference in
respect of termination dated 1-1-2001, it has to be read
as 1-7-2001, which is the actual date of termination. I have gone
through the said decision. The facts therein are different. In this
case, it is not the formal defect, but the controversy revolves
around termination with effect from 1-1-2001 and to read it
as 1-7-2001 or 15-1-2001 changes the entire complexion of
wp3677.07.odt
controversy or dispute. The decision is, therefore, not applicable.
5. The petition is dismissed. Rule stands discharged. No
order as to costs.
JUDGE.
Lanjewar
