Bombay High Court
State Of Maharashtra Thr. Secy. ... vs Presiding Officer, Industrial ... on 8 June, 2017
Bench: B.P. Dharmadhikari
Judgment lpa265.06
1
IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY
NAGPUR BENCH, NAGPUR.
LETTERS PATENT APPEAL NO. 265/2006
IN WRIT PETITION NO. 1723/1995
WITH
LETTERS PATENT APPEAL NO. 128/2007
IN WRIT PETITION No.1724/1995.
.......
LETTERS PATENT APPEAL NO. 265/2006
IN WRIT PETITION NO. 1723/1995.
1. State of Maharashtra,
through its Secretary, Department of
Irrigation, now known as Water
Resources Department, Mantralaya,
Mumbai -32.
2. Superintending Engineer,
Pench Hydro Electric Circle,
Now Gossikhurd project Division,
Nagpur.
3. Executive Engineer,
Hydel Dam Division, Totladoh,
Ramtek, now Gossikhurd right bank
canal division, Brahmapuri,
District Chandrapur.
4. The Sub Divisional Officer,
Hydel Dam Division, Totladoh,
Ramtek, now Gossikhurd right bank
canal division, Brahmapuri,
District Chandrapur. ....APPELLANTS.
::: Uploaded on - 12/06/2017 ::: Downloaded on - 13/06/2017 00:31:21 :::
Judgment lpa265.06
2
VERSUS
1. Presiding Officer,
Industrial Court, Nagpur.
2. Sadanand Zolbaji Meshram,
Aged about 38 years,
Occ - Mazdoor, resident of
Totladoh, district Nagpur. ....RESPONDENTS
.
WITH
LETTERS PATENT APPEAL NO. 128/2007
IN WRIT PETITION NO. 1724/1995.
1. State of Maharashtra,
through its Secretary, Department of
Irrigation, now known as Water
Resources Department, Mantralaya,
Mumbai -32.
2. Superintending Engineer,
Pench Hydro Electric Circle,
Now Gossikhurd project Division,
Nagpur.
3. Executive Engineer,
Hydel Dam Division, Totladoh,
Ramtek, now Gossikhurd right bank
canal division, Brahmapuri,
District Chandrapur.
4. The Sub Divisional Officer,
Hydel Dam Division, Totladoh,
::: Uploaded on - 12/06/2017 ::: Downloaded on - 13/06/2017 00:31:21 :::
Judgment lpa265.06
3
Ramtek, now Gossikhurd right bank
canal division, Brahmapuri,
District Chandrapur. ....APPELLANTS.
VERSUS
1. Presiding Officer,
Industrial Court, Nagpur.
2. Uddhav Shivlal Thakre,
Aged about 43 years,
Occ - Mazdoor, resident of
Totladoh, district Nagpur. ....RESPONDENTS
.
-----------------------------------
Mr. V.G. Palshikar, Asstt. Govt. Pleader for Appellants.
None for Respondent.
------------------------------------
CORAM : B.P. DHARMADHIKARI
AND R.B. DEO, JJ.
DATED : JUNE 08, 2017.
ORAL JUDGMENT. (Per B.P. Dharmadhikari, J)
We have heard Shri Palshikar, learned A.G.P. for appellants in
both these appeals under Clause 15 of the Letters Patent. Limited grievance
is, directions contained in paragraph no.23 of the common judgment
Judgment lpa265.06
delivered by the learned Single Judge of this Court in Writ Petition Nos.
1723 and 1724 of 1995, should be set aside.
2. With the assistance of learned A.G.P. appearing for the appellants
we have perused the judgment delivered by the learned Single Judge. In
paragraph no.23 of the said judgment dated 05.07.2006, learned Single
Judge has looked into subsequent events like death of complainant
[workman] in Writ Petition No.1722/1995. Fact that complainants were
permitted to continue as karkoon on the basis of the orders, as interim stay
was refused by the High Court. Learned Single Judge found it unjust to
permit recoveries to be made from the workmen/employees.
3. Facts show that respective complainants filed complaint nos.
122/1986, 123/1986 and 126/1986 under Section 28 read with Items 5 and
9 of Schedule IV of the Maharashtra Recognition of Trade Union and
Prevention of Unfair Labour Practice Act, 1971. The contention was that
they were initially appointed as mazdoor on daily wages, and were brought
on Converted Regular Temporary Establishment (CRTE) as mazdoor. Other
similarly situated were then promoted to the post of karkoon by order dated
01.01.1986, however, they were denied the same. They claim that because
of their involvement in trade unions' activity, they were victimized.
Judgment lpa265.06
4. Learned Member of the Industrial Court, who decided those
complaints recorded a finding that the complainants were infact doing the
work of karkoon. Their names were forwarded for giving them that work on
CRTE. It was also found that they were qualified to be promoted as
karkoon. The Industrial Court therefore, by its judgment and order dated
09.03.1994 allowed those complaints and directed the appellants to bring
the complainants on CRTE from 04.11.1981, 04.07.1981 and 09.08.1978
respectively. Industrial Court also granted them benefit from said date.
Challenge to this judgment has been upheld by the learned Single Judge
after appreciating the arguments of petitioner - State Government.
5. It is in this background that in paragraph no.23, the learned Single
Judge found it unjust and un-equitable to permit the petitioner employer to
effect recovery.
6. Facts therefore, show that the complainants from whom recovery
is sought were already in the employment and therefore, after completion of
5 years were brought on CRTE. The Industrial Court found them eligible for
promotion and ordered promotion in their favour from 1981 or 1978. This
application of mind by the learned Member of Industrial Court on
Judgment lpa265.06
09.03.1994 has been set aside on 05.07.2006 i.e. after more than 12 years of
the judgment by the Industrial Court. As in the meanwhile there was no stay
granted by the High Court to State Government, directions contained in
orders of the Industrial Court dated 09.03.1994 were implemented. The
complainants got the benefit from 1981 or 1978, as the case may be. In this
situation, the question was of recovery of payments made to them for past
25 years.
7. Perusal of judgment delivered by the learned Single Judge shows
that the complainants were not educationally qualified to occupy the post of
karkoon. Though this reason may be sufficient to deny regularization on
the post of karkoon as such, fact that complainants were promoted to work
as karkoon and have worked as karkoon cannot be disputed. They have
therefore, been paid wages for the work done by them. It therefore, cannot
be said that any unwarranted liability has been cast on the shoulders of State
Government by the observations and directions contained in paragraph
no.23 of the judgment of learned Single Judge of this Court.
8. Keeping in mind the fact that cognizance of a dispute arising out
of a welfare legislation was being taken and it would have been too harsh to
permit recoveries from a weaker section, a direction has been issued. We do
Judgment lpa265.06
not see any perversity or jurisdictional error in the same. Letters Patent
Appeals are therefore, dismissed. No cost.
JUDGE JUDGE
Rgd.
