Bombay High Court
Pravin Dnyandev Kangane vs Executive Engineer, Minor ... on 28 August, 2017
Bench: S.V. Gangapurwala
1 W.P.No.4336/13
UNREPORTED
IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE
AT BOMBAY
BENCH AT AURANGABAD.
WRIT PETITION NO.4336 OF 2013
Pravin Dnyandev Kangane,
Age 48 years, Occ.Labour,
R/o Takli Kathewalit,
Taluka Shrigonda,
District Ahmednagar. ... Petitioner.
Versus
1. Executive Engineer,
Minor Irrigation Department
No.1, Nagar-Aurangabad Road,
Ahmednagar.
2. Executive Engineer, Kukdi
Irrigation Department No.2,
At Post Shrigonda,
District Ahmednagar. ... Respondents.
...
Mr.P.V.Barde, advocate for the petitioner
Mr.A.D.Namde, A.G.P. for the State.
...
CORAM : S.V.GANGAPURWALA J.
Date : 28.08.2017.
ORAL JUDGMENT
1. Rule. Rule returnable forthwith. With
the consent of the learned counsel for the
parties, the petition is taken up for final
hearing.
2. Mr.Barde, learned counsel submits that
the reference made to the Labour Court is
decided against the petitioner under Award dated
14.8.2012. According to the learned counsel, the
petitioner worked with the Respondent from 1984
to 1986. The Respondents did not follow the
proper procedure and the order of retrenchment is
in violation of Section 25-G and 25-F of the
Industrial Disputes Act. The learned counsel
submits that it was an error on the part of the
Labour Court to conclude that petitioner has not
worked for 240 days in a calendar year. Even
that is not necessary to be proved in case of
violation of Section 25-G of the Industrial
Disputes Act. The learned counsel submits that
in the similarly situated petitioners, this Court
has occasion to consider the said aspect in Writ
Petition No.1414/2013 with connected Writ
Petitions decided on 10.4.2013. This Court
granted Rs.40,000/- (Rupees forty thousand) as
retrenchment compensation. The petitioners
therein approached the Apex Court and the Apex
Court enhanced the said retrenchment compensation
to Rs.1,00,000/- (Rupees one lac).
3. Learned A.G.P. submits that there is an
inordinate delay on the part of the petitioner.
The petitioner claims to have been terminated in
the year 1986. The notice was issued only in the
year 2002. The claim after such a long delay can
not be entertained. Moreover, it has been
rightly observed by the Labour Court that the
petitioner has not worked for 240 days and as
such is not entitled for any relief.
4. I have considered the submissions. The
relief of reinstatement certainly can not be
considered at this stage. This Court had an
occasion to consider the cases of employees
similarly situated of the same Respondents herein
and the Court found that there is violation of
Section 25-F of the Industrial Disputes Act and
the petitioners therein are entitled for
retrenchment compensation. This Court considered
the judgment of the Apex Court in the case of
"Hajinder Singh Vs. Punjab State Warehousing
Corporation" reported in AIR 2010 Supreme Court
1116. Retrenchment compensation of Rs.40,000/-
(Rupees forty thousand) was awarded. The Apex
Court enhanced the said retrenchment compensation
to Rs.1,00,000/- (Rupees one lac).
5. In view of that, I follow the same
course.
6. The Respondents shall pay Rs.1,00,000/-
(Rupees one lac) to the petitioner as
retrenchment compensation.
7. Rule accordingly made absolute in above
terms. No costs.
Sd/-
(S.V.GANGAPURWALA,J.)
asp/office/wp4336.13
