Bombay High Court
Sampati Maroti Yadav vs Chief Executive Officer Zilla ... on 27 July, 2017
Bench: R.V. Ghuge
WP/5382/2016
1
IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE OF BOMBAY
BENCH AT AURANGABAD
WRIT PETITION NO. 5382 OF 2016
Sampati Maroti Yadav
Age 54 years, Occ. Nil
R/o Kolpimpri, Tq. Dharur,
District Beed. ..Petitioner
Versus
1. Chief Exeuctive Officer,
Zilla Parishad, Beed
2. Sarpanch,
Grampanchayat, Kolpimpri,
Tq. Kaij, Dist. Beed. ..Respondents
...
Advocate for Petitioner : Shri Shahane P.L. and
Shri Shahane Parag
Advocate for Respondent 1 : Shri Suryawanshi P.D.
Advocate for Respondent 2 : Shri Golewar V.P.
...
CORAM : RAVINDRA V. GHUGE, J.
Dated: July 27, 2017
...
ORAL JUDGMENT :-
1. Heard learned Advocates for the respective parties.
2. Rule.
3. By consent, Rule is made returnable forthwith and the
petition is taken up for final disposal.
WP/5382/2016
4. While issuing notice on 10.10.2016, I had observed in my
order as under:-
"1. The petitioner is aggrieved by the judgment and
award dated 29.9.2014 delivered by the Labour Court.
Though is Reference (IDA) No.51/2001 is partly allowed,
the Labour Court has merely granted compenation of
s.20,000/- without reinstatement, continuity and bck
wages.
2. It is admitted that the petioner was working as a
Watchman from 01.03.1990 upto 01.09.1992 which is
about two years and six months. He is out of employment
ofr the past 24 years.
3. In my view, even if he compensation is to be
granted in lieu of reinstaement, continuity and back
wages, the view taken by the Honourable Supreme Court
in the followig four cases will have to be followed:-
(a) Assistant Engineer, Rajasthan State Agriculture
Marketing Board, Sub-Division, Kota Vs. Mohan Lal [2013
LLR 1009],
(b) Assistant Engineer, Rajasthan Development
Corporation and another Vs. Gitam Singh [(2013) 5 SCC
136],
(c) BSNL Vs. Man Singh [(2012) 1 SCC 558] and
WP/5382/2016
(d) Jagbir Singh Vs. Haryana State Agriculture
Marketing Board [(2009) 15 SCC 327]."
5. Shri Shahane, learned Advocate for the petitioner submits
that since he has been in litigation for more than two decades
and this is a second round of litigation before this Court, he
prays for reinstatement in service and in the alternative, he prays
for compensation of Rs.1,00,000/- per year of service put in by
him with the respondents.
6. Learned Advocates for the respondents contend against
each others that the compensation has to be paid by the other
respondents. In short, the Zilla Parishad claims that the Gram
Panchayat should pay the compensation and the Gram Panchayat
submits that the Zilla Parishad should pay the compensation.
7. Both the learned Advocates for the respondents are united
only on one aspect that the compensation awarded by the Labour
Court is appropriate and looking at the source of revenue of
these respondents, they cannot be equated with private
industries or establishments for granting heavy compensation.
WP/5382/2016
8. After considering the submissions of the learned
Advocates, I find that this is the second round of litigation
between the parties upto this Court. Reference (IDA) No.51 of
2001 was earlier dismissed only for the reason that the Industrial
Dispute was raised after nine years of the disengagement of the
petitioner. Since there was no limitation to entertaining such
reference cases by the Labour Court and since the passage of
time did not amount to an exorbitantly long delay, I had
remitted the reference to the Labour Court. The judgment
delivered by the Honourable Apex Court in Mohanlal (supra)
was also brought to the notice of the Labour Court. Yet, while
allowing the reference partly and while refusing reinstatement
with continuity in service, the Labour Court has granted a
compensation of Rs.10,000/- per year of service and as such, has
quantified the compensation at Rs.20,000/-.
9. Though Shri Shahane strenuously contends that
reinstatement is the appropriate relief to be granted to the
petitioner, I am unable to accept his contention keeping in view
the law laid down by the Honourable Apex Court in the four
judgments referred to herein above. As the petitioner has put in
only two and half years in service and since he is now out of
employment for the past about 25 years, granting reinstatement
WP/5382/2016
would be inappropriate, impractical and would create an
enormous burden on the respondents as they are State
instrumentalities who are always short of funds.
10. The Honourable Apex Court in the case of Rashtrasant
Tukdoji Maharaj Technical Eucation Sanstha, Nagpur Vs.
Prashant Manikrao Kubitkar [AIR 2017 SC 2482], has concluded
that as the appellant had put in 2 years and 3 months of service,
followed by unemployment for 13 years, compensation of
Rs.1,00,000/- was held to be commensurate. In the instant case,
the petitioner has worked for two years and six months.
11. Considering the above, I hereby modify the impugned
award only to the extent of the quantum of compensation. The
petitioner shall be entitled for a compensation of Rs.1,00,000/-.
Since the Labour Court has directed both the respondents to pay
compensation in equal share and as none of them has challenged
the said direction, the said amount of compensation of
Rs.1,00,000/- shall be paid by both the respondents in equal
share within three months from today, failing which, the said
amount shall carry interest at the rate of 6% per annum from the
date of the award. In that situation, the quantum of interest shall
be paid by the Chief Executive Officer, Zilla Parishad and the
WP/5382/2016
Sarpanch of the Gram Panchayat from their own pocket and not
from the State exchequer.
12. This petition is partly allowed. Rule is made partly
absolute in the above terms.
( RAVINDRA V. GHUGE, J. )
...
akl/d
