State Of Maharashtra vs Ramnath Nivrutti Khedkar
2017 Latest Caselaw 2775 Bom

                                       1


         IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE OF BOMBAY
                    BENCH AT AURANGABAD

                      WRIT PETITION NO. 3825 OF 1998



 The State of Maharashtra.                                 ... PETITIONER.
   
       VERSUS

 Shri Ramnath Nivrutti Khedkar,
 Age. Major, Occu. Nil,
 At Post Ghatshil Pargaon,
 Tq. Patoda, Dist. Beed.                                 ...RESPONDENT.



 AGP for Petitioner/State : Shri N. T. Bhagat. 
 Advocate for Respondent  : Shri Ajinkya Reddy.
                             (Appointed as Amicus Curiae)



                                     CORAM : RAVINDRA V. GHUGE, J.

                                     Dated    : 06th June, 2017

 PER COURT :-

1. The petitioner/State is aggrieved by the judgment and

award dated 27/06/1997, by which, Reference (IDA) No.

25/1988, has been partly allowed and the respondent is granted

continuity of service from 01/07/1988, without back wages.

2. Pursuant to the Court notice dated 19/04/2017, the

respondent appeared in person before the Court today. Since, I

realized that he was unable to engage an advocate due to

paucity of funds, I have called upon Shri Ajinkya Reddy, learned

advocate to appear as amicus curiae for representing the cause

for the respondent.

3. This matter was heard after an adjournment post lunch.

4. I have considered the submissions of the learned

advocates for the respective sides.

5. It is apparent from the impugned judgment that the

respondent had claimed to have been working intermittently

and in different spells. At times, he had also worked on the

Employment Guarantee Scheme ("EGS").

6. The respondent had approached the Labour Court in

Reference (IDA) No. 25/1988, claiming reinstatement with

continuity and full back wages with effect from 01/09/1986. In

response to his statement of claim, the petitioner filed it's

written statement stating that the respondent was working

intermittently. He had put in 55 days on daily wages between

01/10/1982 till 07/12/1982, 197 days in between 02/01/1983

to 31/12/1983 and 46 days in between 01/04/1984 to

18/06/1984. The payments made to him and the details of the

vouchers maintained in the cash book were also produced

before the Labour Court. Based on the oral and documentary

evidence, the Labour Court concluded that the respondent had

not completed 240 days in a calender year in service with the

petitioner. Therefore, his disengagement without compliance of

Section 25-F of the Industrial Disputes Act ("ID" Act) was

sustained.

7. In paragraph No. 12 of the impugned judgment, the

Labour Court concluded that the respondent had worked on

EGS. It is settled law that an employee working on EGS cannot

claim reinstatement or continued employment as a matter of

right. However, the Labour Court has granted the relief of

reinstatement without back wages to the respondent because

the petitioner did not maintain a seniority list. On account of

failure to maintain a seniority list, the Labour Court concluded

that there was a breach of Section 25-G of the ID Act.

8. In my view, though the said conclusion would be

unsustainable looking at the duration of work performed

intermittently by the respondent, the Labour Court could have

quantified compensation instead of reinstatement. The

respondent submits that ever since his disengagement from

18/06/1984, he is not in employment with the petitioner for the

last 32 years. An application for last drawn wages under

section 17-B of the ID Act was not filed before this Court though

the petition was admitted and the impugned award was stayed

by the order of this Court dated 11/04/2001.

9. It is, therefore, apparent that the respondent was not

continuously in employment, had not completed 240 days in

continuous service and had worked intermittently, coupled with

the fact that the respondent is not in employment for 32 years.

10. The Hon'ble Apex Court has concluded that when short

spell of employment is followed by a long duration of

unemployment, reinstatement is impractical and quantifying

compensation at the rate of Rs. 30,000/- per year of service,

would be an appropriate relief, in the following four judgments :

1. Assistant Engineer, Rajasthan Development Corporaton and

another Vs. Gitam Singh [2013 LLR 1009],

2. Assistant Engineer, Rajashthan Development Corporation and

another Vs. Gitam Singh [(2013) 5 SCC 136],

3. BSNL Vs. Man Singh [92012) 1 SCC 558] and

4. Jagbir Singh Vs. Haryana State Agriculture Marketing Board

[(2009) 15 SCC 327].

11. Considering the above and the fact that the respondent

had not moved an application for last drawn wages under

Section 17-B, I find it appropriate to grant compensation to the

respondent by modifying the impugned judgment and award.

12. This petition is, therefore, partly allowed. The impugned

judgment and award dated 27/06/1995 is modified by directing

the petitioner to pay compensation of an amount of Rs.

60,000/-(Rupees Sixty Thousand only) in lieu of reinstatement

in service with continuity. The said compensation shall be paid

within a period of three months from today, through the Bank

transactions to be deposited in the savings account of the

respondent bearing No. 31088762161 (IFSC: SBIN0005995)

with Shirur (Patoda) branch of State Bank of India. If the said

amount is not paid within the said period, it would carry

interest at the rate of 6% per annum from the date of the

impugned award.

13. Rule is made partly absolute in the above terms.

14. The fees to be paid to learned Advocate Shri Ajinkya

Reddy are quantified at Rs. 5,000/- (Rupees Five Thousand

only) which shall be paid through the High Court Legal Services

Authority, Sub Committee, Aurangabad.

( RAVINDRA V. GHUGE, J. )

S.P.C.