Regional Manager,Forest ... vs Shri Krishna S/O Sadhuji Sonone
2017 Latest Caselaw 4964 Bom

wp.4008.08.jud                           1


  IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY
            NAGPUR BENCH, NAGPUR

                     WRIT PETITION NO.4008 OF 2008

01]    Regional Manager,
       Forest Development Corporation
       of Maharashtra Ltd.,
       Nagpur Region, Hill Top,
       Ramnagar, Nagpur.

02]    Divisional Manager,
       F.D.C.M.
       Congress Nagar, Nagpur.

03]    Range Forest Officer (Works),
       F.D.C.M., Range Saleghat,
       Tahsil Ramtek, Distt. Nagpur                                .... Petitioners

       -- Versus -

Shri Krishna s/o Sadhuji Sonone,
Aged 42 years, Occupation : Service,
R/o Pawani, Tahsil Ramtek,
Distt. Nagpur.                                                     .... Respondent

Ms. Tajwar Khan, Advocate for the Petitioners.
None for the Respondent.

                CORAM           : KUM. INDIRA JAIN, J.
                DATE            : JULY 24, 2017.


ORAL JUDGMENT :-


                The challenge in petition is to the order dated

09/04/2008 passed by 4th Labour Court, Nagpur in Application

(IDA) No.21/1996 directing the petitioners to pay Rs.51,145/- to




 ::: Uploaded on - 02/08/2017                      ::: Downloaded on - 08/08/2017 01:27:47 :::
 wp.4008.08.jud                             2


respondent as difference of wages within two months from the

date of order.



02]             The facts giving rise to the petition may be stated in

nutshell as under :


            i. Respondent        was      engaged       as     causal        worker        by

                petitioners.     The services of respondent came to be

                terminated in 1989.            The otherwise termination was

                challenged       by      respondent       in    Complaint           (ULPA)

                No.1078/1989.         The      Labour        Court       allowed          the

                complaint on 18/05/1995. The said order was carried

                in revision before the Industrial Court.


            ii. During pendency of revision, respondent filed an

                application under Section 33(C)(2) of the Industrial

                Disputes Act and claimed an amount of Rs.51,145/- as

                difference of wages. Vide impugned order, IDA Case

                No.21/1996       filed    under      Section       33(C)(2)        of     the

                Industrial      Disputes       Act    came        to      be      allowed.

                Petitioners, being aggrieved with the said order, have

                invoked extraordinary jurisdiction of this Court.




 ::: Uploaded on - 02/08/2017                         ::: Downloaded on - 08/08/2017 01:27:47 :::
 wp.4008.08.jud                            3


        03]              Heard Ms. Tajwar Khan, learned Counsel for

        petitioners.            Learned Counsel placed reliance on the

        judgment dated 03/11/2014 passed by this Court in Writ

        Petition         No.3542/2003         along        with        Writ        Petition

        No.4436/2003 and submitted that the orders granting

        reinstatement with full back wages to complainant passed

        by the Labour Court and maintained by the Revisional

        Court have been set aside by this Court in the above said

        writ petitions.          Submission is that in view of order dated

        03/11/2014 in the aforesaid writ petitions, order passed by

        the Labour Court on application under Section 33(C)(2) of

        the Industrial Disputes Act would not survive and writ

        petition deserves to be allowed.



        04]              With the assistance of the learned Counsel for

        the petitioners, this Court has gone through the order

        dated 03/11/2014 in Writ Petition No.3542/2003 along with

        Writ Petition No.4436/2003. Learned Counsel has produced

        copy of said order on record, which is marked as "X" for the

        purpose of identification. Since the basic challenge by

        complainant to reinstate with full back wages has failed in




 ::: Uploaded on - 02/08/2017                         ::: Downloaded on - 08/08/2017 01:27:47 :::
 wp.4008.08.jud                        4


        view of order dated 03/11/2014 passed by this Court, the

        impugned order granting difference of wages under Section

        33(C)(2) of the Industrial Disputes Act would not sustain in

        law.      Writ petition deserves to be allowed.            Hence, the

        following order :


                                 ORDER

I. Writ Petition No.4008/2008 is allowed.

II. Rules is made absolute in terms of prayer clause (i).

III. No order as to costs .

*sdw                                       (Kum. Indira Jain, J.)