Bombay High Court
Mahatma Phule Krishi ... vs Devidas Shankar Koli And Anr on 18 April, 2017
Bench: P.R. Bora
1 WP No.2929/1998 & Anr.
IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE OF BOMBAY
BENCH AT AURANGABAD
WRIT PETITION NO.2929 OF 1998
Mahatma Phule Krishi Vidyapeeth,
through Oil Seeds Specialist,
Near Hira Shiva Colony,
Old Highway, Nimkhedi Road,
Jalgaon - 425 001. ... PETITIONER
(Org. Ist party
employer)
VERSUS
1. Devidas s/o. Shankar Koli,
Age: 25 years, Occ: Service,
R/o. Jalgaon, Dist. Jalgaon ... RESPONDENT No.1
(Org. Second Party
Workman)
2. Presiding Officer,
Labour Court, Jalgaon ... RESPONDENT No.2
(Court below)
WITH
WRIT PETITION NO.2930 OF 1998
Mahatma Phule Krishi Vidyapeeth,
through Oil Seeds Specialist,
Near Hira Shiva Colony,
Old Highway, Nimkhedi Road,
Jalgaon - 425 001
...PETITIONER
(Org. Ist party
employer)
VERSUS
1. Subhash s/o. Shrawan Koli,
Age:30 years, Occ: Service,
R/o. Mumrabad, Dist. Jalgaon
...RESPONDENT NO.1
(Org. Second Party
workman)
::: Uploaded on - 20/04/2017 ::: Downloaded on - 21/04/2017 00:45:44 :::
2 WP No.2929/1998 & Anr.
2. Presiding Officer,
Labour Court, Jalgaon
...RESPONDENT NO.2
(Court below)
-----
Mr. Pradeep Shahane, Advocate for Petitioner/s;
Mr. GV Wani, Advocate for Respondent No.1
-----
CORAM : P.R.BORA,J.
DATE :
18 th
April,2017.
ORAL JUDGMENT:
1) In the present petitions the petitioners
have questioned the order passed by the Labour
Court, Jalgaon on 25th March, 1998 in Reference
(IDA)Nos.23/1994 and 29/1994. Since the issues
raised in both the petitions are common, I have
heard the common arguments in both the petitions
and I deem it appropriate to decide these
petitions by common reasoning.
2) It was the contention of the
workmen/employees that their services were orally
terminated by the employer without complying the
provisions and more particularly without giving
any notice and without paying them any
compensation as provided under Section 25-F of
the Industrial Disputes Act.
3) From the order passed by the Labour
Court in the aforesaid Reference Applications, it
is revealed that the Labour Court has held the
termination of the workmen/employees bad for want
of compliance of Section 25-F of the Industrial
Disputes Act. It is further revealed that during
pendency of the Reference Applications, the
petitioner - employer reinstated the workmen. It
is thus evident that the employer has accepted
the order to the effect of reinstatement and has
even acted upon the same before it was passed.
4) The only issue now needs to be
considered is of `back wages'. The Labour Court,
while discussing the issue, as about award of
back wages, has made the following observations,
-
"6. Issue Nos. 1 to 6 : It is not
disputed that the IInd party workman
has completed 240 days in the
preceding years from the date of his
termination as per the attendance
sheet filed by the Ist party employer
at Exh.C-6. Hence, I answer this
issue in the affirmative. It is also
not disputed that the IInd party
workman has again reinstated in
service w.e.f.16.6.94. It is also not
disputed that the Ist party did not
lead any oral evidence and also failed
to prove how there was no-employer
employee relationship in between the
IInd party and Ist party. It is also
not disputed that while terminating
the services of the IInd party, the
Ist party did not issue one month
notice, notice pay and retrenchment
compensation to the IInd party
workman. It is the case of the Ist
party that the IInd party workman at
his own remained absent from duty, and
hence it is not necessary to comply
with the provisions of Sec. 25-F and
Sec.25-C of the I.D. Act. I do not
agree with the submission made by the
learned counsel for the Ist party. It
is held by our Hon'ble High Court in
Faiz Ahamad Vs. Ismile Mohd. of
Bombay & others FLS 1991(63) page 679.
"Even if the story of
voluntary abandonment of
service by workman put by the
employer is accepted, it was
incumbent upon the employer
to hold an enquiry before
treating the services as
terminated on the ground of
abandonment. In absence of
such enquiry by the employer
the termination of service
cannot be held legal and
valid."
Therefore, considering the non-
compliance of mandatory provisions of
Sec.25-F of the I.D.Act, and relying
in the aforesaid citation, I am of the
considered opinion that the Ist party
employer has orally terminated the
services of the IInd party w.e.f.
3.9.93. Therefore, it is necessary to
quash and set aside the oral order.
Admittedly the IInd party workman has
reinstated the workman in services
16.4.94. Considering the special
circumstances of the case. I am of
the considered opinion that the ends
of justice would must if the IInd
party workman is granted with the back
wages @ 30% only."
5) From the discussion made by the learned
Presiding Officer of the Labour Court, it is
quite evident that the Labour Court has
considered the fact that in the meanwhile period;
the employees/workmen did not work with the
employer. However, it has also been observed
that the employees were forced to remain out of
the employment, because they were not permitted
to work with the employer.
6) Considering the fact that the employer
has reinstated the employees/workmen during
pendency of the Reference Applications, the
Reference Court found it appropriate to award 30%
of the back wages. It does not appear to me that
the Reference Court has committed any error in
awarding the back wages to the aforesaid extent
to both the employees involved in the present
writ petitions. I am not convinced with the
objections, which are raised by the petitioner-
employer against the said part of the order.
Both the writ petitions, being devoid of any
substance, stand dismissed. Rule discharged.
(P.R.BORA)
JUDGE
bdv/
