Bombay High Court
The Director Ground Water Survey ... vs Anandrao S/O Babarao Palaskar ... on 3 July, 2017
Bench: I.K. Jain
wp.5011.16.jud 1
IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY
NAGPUR BENCH, NAGPUR
WRIT PETITION NO.5011 OF 2016
01] The Director,
Ground Water Survey & Development Agency,
Maharashtra State, Pune.
02] The Deputy Director,
Ground Water Survey & Development Agency,
Amravati. .... Petitioners
-- Versus -
01] Anandrao s/o Babarao Palaskar [Dead]
Through his Legal Representatives.
A} Smt. Mandakini wd/o Anandrao Palaskar,
Aged about 57 years.
B} Vijay s/o Anandrao Palaskar,
Aged about 40 years.
C} Rajesh s/o Anandrao Palaskar,
Aged about 38 years.
D} Chandrashekhar s/o Anandrao Palaskar,
Aged about 36 years.
All r/o Shikshak Colony,
Ram Nagar, Amravati.
02] Labour Court, Amravati.
03] Member, Industrial Court,
Amravati. .... Respondents
Shri V.P. Gangane, A.G.P. for the Petitioners.
None for the Respondents
::: Uploaded on - 07/07/2017 ::: Downloaded on - 08/07/2017 00:37:24 :::
wp.5011.16.jud 2
CORAM : KUM. INDIRA JAIN, J.
DATE : JULY 3, 2017.
ORAL JUDGMENT :-
Heard Shri V.P. Gangane, learned Assistant
Government Pleader for petitioners. None for respondents.
02] Challenge in petition is to the judgment and order
dated 23/02/2015 passed by the Industrial Court, Amravati in
Revision (ULP) No.63/2006 and judgment and order dated
14/07/2006 passed by the Labour Court, Amravati in Complaint
(ULP) No.205/1999.
03] The facts giving rise to the petition may be stated in
brief as under :
i. On 23/08/1966, original complainant was engaged as
Jack Hammer Driller. His services were terminated on
19/05/1976. The order of termination came to be
challenged before the Labour Court, Amravati. On
14/07/2006, Labour Court directed the petitioners to
::: Uploaded on - 07/07/2017 ::: Downloaded on - 08/07/2017 00:37:24 :::
wp.5011.16.jud 3
reinstate the complainant with 50% back wages and
continuity of service.
ii. The order of reinstatement and back wages was
carried in two revision applications before the
Industrial Court, Amravati. Revision applications were
dismissed and the order of Labour Court came to be
modified to the extent of reinstatement as original
complainant had expired during pendency of revision.
Being aggrieved, petitioners have preferred this
petition.
04] The main ground of challenge in the petition is that
the Department of Ground Water Survey & Development Agency
is not an industry as defined under Section 2(j) of the Industrial
Disputes Act, 1947.
05] It is pertinent to note that the activities of department
were to undertake survey for underground water resources and
after detecting water source to dig wells or bore wells.
Complainant as a Jack Hammer Driller was required to bore holes
::: Uploaded on - 07/07/2017 ::: Downloaded on - 08/07/2017 00:37:24 :::
wp.5011.16.jud 4
in rocks with the Jack Hammer Drill for the purpose of blasting
the rocks with the help of detonators. It is not in dispute that
complainant was assigned with the work of digging wells and
bores. Considering the nature of work, the Labour Court has
held and rightly so that wells and bore wells were dug out to
satisfy human wants for drinking water and the activities carried
out by the department with the machines and with the help of
labourers were nothing but the activities carried out by an
Industry as defined under Section 2(j) of the Industrial Disputes
Act. This Court finds no error in the findings recorded by the
Labour Court and the Industrial Court.
06] So far as the merits are concerned, needless to state
that scope of interference in writ jurisdiction is limited and it is
for the department to show that the orders are perverse and
illegal. The cross-examination of witness examined on behalf of
department would reveal that complainant was appointed on a
vacant post and he was promoted in the year 1972 against a
vacant and sanctioned post. All the material admissions elicited
in cross-examination of the witness examined by petitioners
would indicate that termination of services of complainant by the
::: Uploaded on - 07/07/2017 ::: Downloaded on - 08/07/2017 00:37:24 :::
wp.5011.16.jud 5
department was not legal and was the result of an unfair labour
practice on the part of the department. The courts below have
appreciated the evidence and material placed on record and
recorded the concurrent findings. No perversity or illegality is
noticed. As such no interference is warranted in writ jurisdiction.
Writ petition deserves to be dismissed. Hence, the following
order :
ORDER
i. Writ Petition No.5011/2016 stands dismissed.
ii. Rule is discharged with no order as to costs.
*sdw JUDGE
