Bombay High Court
State Of Maharashtra ... vs Popat Rajaram Gaikwad on 19 April, 2017
Bench: P.R. Bora
1 WP NO.3824 OF 1998
IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE OF BOMBAY
BENCH AT AURANGABAD
WRIT PETITION NO. 3824 of 1998
The State of Maharashtra
through Executive Engineer,
Public Works Division,
Ahmednagar.
...PETITIONER
(Ori. I party)
VERSUS
Popat Rajaram Gaikwad,
R/o. Mahi-Jalgaon,
Tq. Karjat, Dist. Ahmednagar.
...RESPONDENT
(Ori.IInd party)
...
Mr. S.P.Tiwari, AGP for petitioner.
Respondent (sole) served.
...
CORAM: P.R.BORA, J.
DATE : April 19th, 2017.
...
ORAL JUDGMENT:
1. Heard learned A.G.P. appearing for the
petitioner State. Though the respondent is served, he
has not entered his appearance either in person, or
2 WP NO.3824 OF 1998
through Counsel.
2. By filing the present petition the petitioner has
challenged the award dated 21st of June, 1997, passed by
the first Labour Court, Ahmednagar, in Reference (IDA)
No.159/1993.
3. The respondent workman had raised a dispute
before the Deputy Commissioner of Labour, Nashik, as
about his termination by the petitioner w.e.f. 1st of June,
1986. The dispute so raised was forwarded by the Deputy
Commissioner of Labour, Nashik, under Section 10(1) read
with Section 12(5) of the Industrial Disputes Act, 1947, for
adjudication to the Labour Court, at Ahmednagar. The
dispute which was referred for adjudication was as below:
" Shri Popat Rajaram Gaikwad should be
reinstated with full backwages and continuity of
service with effect from 1/6/1986."
4. It was the contention of the respondent
workman that though he was in continuous service of the
petitioner, and has continuously worked for more than 240
3 WP NO.3824 OF 1998
days in the preceding year, his services were terminated
abruptly without following due process of law. As against
it, it was the contention of the petitioner that the
respondent workman was not recruited by following due
process of law and was used to be engaged by the
petitioner as and when required for a temporary period
and further that he did never work continuously for a
period of more than 240 days in one year and, as such,
was not entitled for any relief as was claimed. After
adjudication the Reference Court passed the following
award:
" Reference is partly allowed.
The first party is directed to take the services of
second party workman Shri Popat Rajaram Gaikwad
as a fresh as a Mile Coolie by taking his name in the
seniority list. In the circumstances, both the parties
are directed to bear their own costs."
5. Aggrieved by the award so passed, the State
has filed the present writ petition. An ad interim stay was
granted by this Court in terms of prayer clause (D) on 1st
of September, 1998. Vide prayer clause D, the petitioner
had prayed for stay to the operation and execution of the
impugned judgment and award pending hearing and final
4 WP NO.3824 OF 1998
disposal of the writ petition.
6. From the record it is revealed that the
respondent workman has not appeared in the matter
though he is duly served. He has not made any attempt
to get vacated the interim order passed by this Court on
1.9.1998, nor any application seems to have been filed by
the respondent workman invoking the provisions under
Section 17(B) of the Industrial Disputes Act seeking
directions against the petitioner to pay him the wages
during the pendency of the writ petition.
7. In the above circumstances, it does not appear
to me that there is any propriety in going into the merits
of the contentions raised in the writ petition after lapse of
19 years. Even otherwise, from the material on record, it
is revealed that the respondent workman had failed in
establishing that he has worked for more than 240 days
continuously in any of the preceding years of his
termination. However, as I stated earlier, I do not wish
to enter into the merits of the matter for the reason that
the alleged termination is of the year 1986 i.e. prior to
5 WP NO.3824 OF 1998
about 31 years. No information is available on record
whether respondent workman is interested in getting
executed the order passed in the Reference. As noted
above, the order passed in the award was stayed by this
Court and the stay had continued till date for a period of
about 19 years.
The present Writ Petition, therefore, can be disposed
of with the direction to the petitioner Department that if
the respondent makes himself available and seeks work
from the petitioner, and if the work is available and the
respondent is found eligible to do the said work, the work
may be provided to him and the wages may be paid to him
in accordance with the present rate.
The writ petition stands disposed of with the
observations as aforesaid. Rule made absolute
accordingly.
(P.R.BORA)
JUDGE
...
AGP/3824-98wp
