Bombay High Court
Devorao Hari Kawade vs Shrirampur Doodh Zilla ... on 25 April, 2017
Bench: P.R. Bora
1 W.P. 3738.1998 - [ J ]
IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY
BENCH AT AURANGABAD
WRIT PETITION NO. 3738 OF 1998
Devrao s/o Hari Kawade
At Post Kolhar, Taluka
Shrirampur, Dist. .... PETITIONER/
Ahmednagar. [ORI. DEFENDANT]
VERSUS
Shrirampur Doodh Zilla
Madhyavarti Sahakari .... RESPONDENT/
Doodh Vyavasayik Sangh Ltd. [ORI. PLAINTIFF]
.............................
Mr. A.S.Shelke, Advocate for Petitioner.
Mr. R.N.Dhorde, Sr.Counsel for Respondent.
.............................
CORAM : P.R.BORA, J.
DATE OF JUDGMENT : 25th APRIL, 2017
.............................
ORAL JUDGMENT :
1. Heard learned counsel for the parties.
2. Perusal of the impugned order shows that the
learned Labour Court though directed reinstatement of the
2 W.P. 3738.1998 - [ J ]
petitioner to the original post, relief of back-wages was
refused. In paragraph 13 of the impugned order, learned
Labour Court has observed thus,
" Now the question is remained
about the back-wages. The workman
has not entered into the witness box and
has not lead any evidence that after
termination during the idle period he
was not having any income. At the
same time, the first party has produced
on record and it is proved by oral and
documentary evidence that the workman
is a member of the Pravara Sahakari
Dudh Vyavasayik Sanstha Maryadit,
Bahhaleshwar, Tal. Shrirampur, Dist.
Ahmednagar and sending milk to the
said Sanstha for selling. The first party
has also produced 7/12 extract of the
land vide Exh. C-42 and proved that 7
Acres of land stands in the name of the
workman along with his brother. It is
disclosed from 7/12 extract that the
workman is taking crops of Bajara and
Onion, etc. From the documentary
evidence it is proved that the workman
is having agriculture income from the
land as well as selling milk to the said
co-operative society. For these reasons,
since the workman is having income
3 W.P. 3738.1998 - [ J ]
about two sources during his idle period.
He is not entitled for the relief of
backwages. For these reasons, I record
my findings that the workman is entitled
for the relief of reinstatement without
continuity in service and backwages.
3. Mr. Shelke, learned counsel for the petitioner
sought to canvass that for the reasons as assigned by the
Labour Court, the relief of back-wages could not have
been refused. I am, however, not convinced with the
submissions so made. When there was no evidence and
the workman did not enter into witness box, did not lead
evidence and consequently did not prove that he was not
gainfully employed in the intervening period, learned
Labour Court has rightly refused the relief of back-wages.
I, therefore, do not see any infirmity in the order of the
Labour Court thereby refusing the back-wages to the
petitioner. However, it appears to me that when the
termination itself was held illegal and the reinstatement
was directed, learned Labour Court ought to have granted
the relief of continuity of service, which could not have
cast any financial burden on the respondent/institution.
I, therefore, deem it appropriate to grant the relief of
continuity in service. Order accordingly.
4 W.P. 3738.1998 - [ J ]
4. With the observations as above, Writ Petition
is partly allowed. Rule is made absolute in above terms.
[P.R.BORA, J.]
KNP/W.P. 3738.1998 - [ J ]
