Bombay High Court
Prakash Mangre Wagh vs Forest Development Corporation ... on 18 August, 2017
Bench: S.C. Gupte
wp5144.15.J.odt 1/9
IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY
NAGPUR BENCH, NAGPUR
WRIT PETITION NO. 5144 OF 2015
1] Gulab Shankar Bagade,
Aged about 54 years. R/o-Maher,
Post-Khed, Taluka-Bramhapuri,
Dist-Chandrapur.
2] Krishna Sadashiv Gurunule,
Aged about 43 years, R/o-Kinhi,
Taluka-Sindhewahi, Dist-Chandrapur.
3] Arun Ganghadhar Botkawar,
Aged about 44 years, R/o-Dhorpa,
Post-Paharni, Taluka-Nagbhid,
Dist-Chandrapur.
4] Bhaskar Nanaji Sonule,
Aged about 50 years,
R/o-Saradpar, Taluka-Sindewahi,
District-Chandrapur.
5] Sudhakar Sitaram Kumre,
Aged about 56 years,
R/o-Madnapur Ward, Sindewahi,
District-Chandrapur.
6] Deepak Pralhad Wankhede,
Aged about 58 years, Sindewahi,
Hetiward, District-Chandrapur.
7] Narendra Ramaji Dhongade,
Aged about 49 years, R/o-Lonwahi,
Sindewahi, Dist. Chandrapur.
8] Namdeo Dewaji Kore,
Aged about 46 years, R/o-Post Mendha
::: Uploaded on - 23/08/2017 ::: Downloaded on - 24/08/2017 01:54:50 :::
wp5144.15.J.odt 2/9
(Kirmiti) Tah-Bramhapuri,
Dist. Chandrapur.
9] Waman Madadev Raut,
Aged about 51 years, R/o-Dudhwahi,
Post Khed, Tah-Bramhapuri,
Dist. Chandrapur.
10] Dudhram Maroti Deshmukh,
Aged about 54 years, R/o-Shivnagar,
Taluka Nagbhid, Dist. Chandrapur.
11] Ramdas Atmaram Khobragade,
Aged about 57 years, R/o Dordha Post
Paharni, Taluka Nagbhid,
Dist. Chandrapur.
12] Mahadeo Gomaji Bagmare,
Aged about 61 years, R/o Uchali Post
Moushi, Taluka Nagbhid,
Dist-Chandrapur.
13] Madhukar Ramchandra Meshram,
Aged about 46 years, R/o Armori,
Shivaji Chowk, Armori, Taluka Armori,
Dist. Gadchiroli,
14] Nanaji Mukhru Shivurkar,
Aged about 46 years, R/o Armori,
Shivaji Chowk, Armori, Taluka Armori,
Dist. Gadchiroli.
15] Vithal Somaji Ambone,
Aged about 49 years, R/o Shivnagar,
Taluka Nagbhid, Dist. Chandrapur.
16] Purushottam Pandurang Kolte,
Aged about 49 years, R/o Wasara, Post
Mindala, Taluka Nagbhid,
Dist. Chandrapur.
::: Uploaded on - 23/08/2017 ::: Downloaded on - 24/08/2017 01:54:50 :::
wp5144.15.J.odt 3/9
17] Digambar Sambhaji Raut.
Aged about 62 years, R/o-Wasera,
Post Mindala, Talukar Nagbhid,
District-Chandrapur.
18] Madhukar Ramchandra Meshram.
Aged about 54 years, R/o-Paharni,
Taluka Nagbhid, District - Chandrapur.
19] Abhiman Chintaman Sondawale,
Aged about 48 years, R/o-Vilam,
Taluka Nagbhid, Dist. Chandrapur.
20] Goma Soma Thote,
Aged about 65 years, R/o Telimendha
Post Paharni, Tq. Nagbhid,
Dist. Chandrapur.
21] Ramesh Shrawan Bhendare,
Aged about 49 years, R/o-Murmadi,
Tq. Sindewahi, Dist. Chandrapur.
22] Gopal Tulshiram Nagarikar,
Aged about 60 years, R/o-Chikmara,
Post Vilan, Taluka Nagbhid (Shivnagar)
Dist. Chandrapur.
23] Haridas Pandurang Alwankar,
Aged about 60 years, R/o-Chikmara,
Post Vilan, Tq. Nagbhid (Shivnagar)
Dist. Chandrapur.
24] Nathu Chirkuta Maraskolhe,
Aged about 60 years.
25] Prakash Mangre Wagh,
Aged about 47 years, R/o No.24 & 25
R/o-Kunghada Chak, Post Mohadi (Mo)
Tq. Nagbhid, Dist. Chandrapur.
::: Uploaded on - 23/08/2017 ::: Downloaded on - 24/08/2017 01:54:50 :::
wp5144.15.J.odt 4/9
26] Raghunath Tulshiram Adkine,
Aged about 51 years, R/o Maher,
Post. Khed, Taluka Bramhapuri,
Dist. Chandrapur.
27] Uttam Sakharam Bawane,
Aged about 55 years, R/o Maher,
Post. Khed, Taluka Bramhapuri,
Dist. Chandrapur.
28] Yashwant Dashrath Sutar.
Aged about 57 years.
28] Chandrabhan Antuji Barokar,
Aged about 58 years.
Both No.28 & 29 R/o Chindhimal,
Post Chindhi Chak, Tq. Nagbhid,
District-Chandrapur. .....PETITIONERS
...V E R S U S...
1] Forest Development Corporation of
Maharashtra Ltd.,
Through its Managing Director,
Having its Office at Rawel Plaza,
Kadbi Chowk, Kamptee road,
Nagpur - 4.
2] Regional Manager (General Manager)
F.D.C.M. Ltd., North Chandrapur
Region, Mul Road, Chandrapur.
3] Divisional Manager,
L. D. C. M. Ltd., Bramhaprui Division,
District - Chandrapur. ...... RESPONDENTS.
=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-
Shri B. M. Khan, Advocate for the Petitioners.
Shri M. M. Sudame, AGP for the Respondent No.3.
=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-
::: Uploaded on - 23/08/2017 ::: Downloaded on - 24/08/2017 01:54:50 :::
wp5144.15.J.odt 5/9
CORAM : S. C. GUPTE, J.
th
DATE : 18
AUGUST, 2017.
ORAL JUDGMENT :
Heard learned counsel for the parties.
02] Rule. Rule made returnable forthwith and taken up for
hearing with consent of counsel.
03] The petition challenges an order passed by the Industrial
Court at Chandrapur in a revision from a complaint of unfair labour
practice. The complaint in this case pertains to the petitioners'
termination by the respondents by orders dated 30 th June, 2000.
The petitioners were working as "Chowkidar" with the respondents
since 1986. Their services were terminated on 30 th June, 2000 by
way of retrenchment without complying with the statutory
provisions. Similar orders were passed in respect of a total of about
150 employees. The employees challenged their respective
terminations by separate complaints. The petitioners' complaint
before the Labour Court was Complaint ULP No.102/2000. The
Labour Court partly allowed the complaint and granted relief of
wp5144.15.J.odt 6/9
Rs.25,000/- by way of compensation towards retrenchment. The
matter was carried in revision before the Industrial Court at
Chandrapur. The Revisional Court by its order dated 29 th
November, 2013, dismissed the revision. The present petition
challenges the order of dismissal passed in revision. By the time
this petition has come up for hearing before this Court, other
employees' challenge to the award of compensation of Rs.25,000/-
went all the way to the Hon'ble Supreme Court and by its order
dated 24th April, 2015, the Hon'ble Supreme Court, relying on the
law decided in the case of Bharat Sanchar Nigam Limited ..vs..
Man Singh, reported in (2012) 1 Supreme Court Cases 558,
enhanced the compensation in the case each of the workmen to
Rs.2,00,000/-. The present petitioners also press for enhancement
of their compensations on the basis of the order passed by the
Hon'ble Supreme Court. A learned Single Judge of this Court, in
another writ petition of a similarly placed employee of the
respondents, namely, Writ Petition No.3509 of 2016, passed a
similar order of compensation based on the Hon'ble Supreme
Court's order in the case of other employees referred to above.
04] Learned counsel for the respondents opposes this
wp5144.15.J.odt 7/9
application on two grounds. Firstly, learned counsel submits that
the decision of the Hon'ble Supreme Court in the case of Bharat
Sanchar Nigam Limited, does not state any law and that it is
really an order under Article 142 of the Constitution of India.
Secondly, it is submitted that though this Court passed a similar
order of compensation in Writ Petition No.4720 of 2014 and Writ
Petition No.4726 of 2014, in other two petitions of similarly placed
employees, namely, Writ Petition No.3509 of 2016 and Writ
Petition No.3400 of 2016, this Court has refused to pass any order
of enhancement.
05] In the first place, the order of the Hon'ble Supreme
Court in the case of Bharat Sanchar Nigam Limited, does state a
proposition of law. It considers a catena of decisions of the Hon'ble
Supreme Court, which lay down that although an order of
retrenchment passed in violation of Section 25-F of the Industrial
Disputes Act may be set aside, an award of reinstatement should
not ordinarily be passed. The Court, in this behalf, distinguished
between a daily wager, who does not hold a post, and a permanent
employee. After considering this legal position and also the fact
that the workmen before the Court in the case of Bharat Sanchar
wp5144.15.J.odt 8/9
Nigam Limited were daily wagers having put in work for more
than 240 days, the Court was of the view that the relief of
reinstatement was not justified and that instead of mandatory
compensation of Rs.2,00,000/- to each of the workmen before it
would meet the ends of justice.
06] Apropos of the second argument of the respondents, it is
seen from the various orders passed by this Court in the individual
petitions referred to above that in Writ Petition No.3509 of 2016
and Writ Petition No.3400 of 2016, relief similar to that granted by
the Hon'ble Supreme Court to similarly placed employees, was
denied to the particular petitioners on the ground of inordinate
delay. In the present case, there is no such delay. The case of the
present petitioners stands exactly on the same footing as the other
employees in whose cases the Hon'ble Supreme Court enhanced the
compensation from Rs.25,000/- to Rs.2,00,000/-. There is no
reason why similar enhancement should not be granted to the
petitioners herein.
07] In the premises, in the peculiar facts and circumstances
of the case, Rule is made absolute by quashing and setting aside the
wp5144.15.J.odt 9/9
revisional order of the Industrial Court as well as the original order
of the Labour Court and enhancing the compensation granted to
the petitioners from Rs.25,000/- to Rs.2,00,000/-.
08] The petition is disposed of in the above terms. No order
as to costs.
09] In case the compensation is not paid within a period of
six weeks from today, 12% interest will be paid on the amount of
compensation unpaid from the date of expiry of six weeks from
today and till payment or realization.
JUDGE
PBP
