Bombay High Court
Regional Manager,F.D.C.M.Ltd. & ... vs Purushottam S/O Laxman Chavre on 24 July, 2017
Bench: I.K. Jain
wp.3963.08.jud 1
IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY
NAGPUR BENCH, NAGPUR
WRIT PETITION NO.3963 OF 2008
01] Regional Manager,
F.D.C.M. Ltd.,
Hill Top, Ramnagar, Nagpur.
02] The Divisional Manager,
F.D.C.M. Ltd.,
Congress Nagar, Nagpur.
03] Range Forest Officer,
F.D.C.M. Ltd.,
Dhanoda, Tah. Ramtek,
District Nagpur .... Petitioners
-- Versus -
Purushottam s/o Laxman Chavre,
R/o Pawni, Tah. Ramtek,
District Nagpur. .... Respondent
Ms. Tajwar Khan, Advocate for the Petitioners.
None for the Respondent.
CORAM : KUM. INDIRA JAIN, J.
DATE : JULY 24, 2017.
ORAL JUDGMENT :-
This petition takes an exception to the judgment and
order dated 09/04/2008 passed by the 4 th Labour Court, Nagpur
in Application I.D.A. Case No.25/1996 partly allowing the
application and directing the petitioners to pay Rs.1,03,669.50 to
::: Uploaded on - 02/08/2017 ::: Downloaded on - 08/08/2017 01:27:47 :::
wp.3963.08.jud 2
respondent as wages for the period from 01/10/1989 to
31/12/1995 along with interest at the rate of 6% from the date of
filing of application till realization.
02] The facts giving rise to the petition may be stated in
brief as under :
i. Respondent was engaged on daily wages with
petitioners in the year 1977. On 01/10/1989, services
of respondent were discontinued by the employer. He
filed Complaint (ULPA) No.948/1989 before Labour
Court, Nagpur. The same was allowed vide judgment
and order dated 17/05/1995 and employer was
directed to instate the employee on the post of driver
with back wages.
ii. Being aggrieved, Revision Application No.356/1995
was preferred before Industrial Court, Nagpur. During
pendency of revision, respondent filed IDA Case
No.25/1996 under Section 33(C)(2) of the Industrial
Disputes Act claiming back wages as granted by
::: Uploaded on - 02/08/2017 ::: Downloaded on - 08/08/2017 01:27:47 :::
wp.3963.08.jud 3
Labour Court. This application came to be allowed on
09/04/2008 and Labour Court directed petitioners to
pay sum of Rs.1,03,669.50 to respondent for the
period 01/10/1989 to 31/12/1995. It is this order
which is the subject matter of present writ petition.
03] Ms. Tajwar Khan, learned Counsel for petitioners
referring to the judgment dated 03/11/2014 in Writ Petition
No.3541/2003 submitted that the order passed by Industrial
Court, dated 27/02/2003 in Revision (ULP) No.356/1995 came to
be quashed and set aside by this Court to the extent of grant of
back wages to the complainant and in view of the said order,
present writ petition needs to be allowed. Learned Counsel has
produced copy of judgment and order dated 03/11/2014 in Writ
Petition No.3541/2003 and the same is marked as "X" for the
purpose of identification.
04] On cursory perusal of the order in Writ Petition
No.3541/2003, it can be seen that the order passed by Industrial
Court to the extent of granting back wages to the complainant
for the period from 01/10/1989 to 31/10/1995 has been set aside
::: Uploaded on - 02/08/2017 ::: Downloaded on - 08/08/2017 01:27:47 :::
wp.3963.08.jud 4
by this Court. In view of said order and for the reasons recorded
therein, order passed in IDA Application No.25/1996 under
Section 33(C)(2) of the Industrial Disputes Act would not sustain
in law and the same needs to be quashed and set aside. Hence,
the following order :
ORDER
I. Writ Petition No.3963/2008 is allowed.
II. Rule is made absolute in terms of prayer clause (I).
III. No order as to costs.
*sdw (Kum. Indira Jain, J.)
