Bombay High Court
Dnyanoba Laxman Taktode vs The State Of Maharashtra And Ors on 15 June, 2017
Bench: R.V. Ghuge
1
IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE OF BOMBAY
BENCH AT AURANGABAD
WRIT PETITION NO.2901 OF 2006
Dnyanoba s/o Laxman Taktode,
Age-46 years, Occu-Nil,
R/o At Post Salegaon, Tq. Kaij,
Dist.Beed -- PETITIONER
VERSUS
1. The State of Maharashtra,
Through Secretary,
Health Department, Mantralaya
Mumbai - 32,
2. The Maleria Supervisor,
Sub Unit Kaij, Dist.Beed,
3. District Maleria Officer,
Beed, Kaij Road, Beed,
4. Deputy Director,
Maleria and Health Department,
Aurangabad -- RESPONDENTS
Mr.S.N.Rodge, Advocate for the petitioner. (Appointed)
Mr.N.T.Bhagat, AGP for respondent No.1.
( CORAM : Ravindra V.Ghuge, J.)
DATE : 15/06/2017
ORAL JUDGMENT :
1. The petitioner is aggrieved by the judgment dated 10/10/2005
delivered by the Industrial Court, Aurangabad, by which Revision
(ULP) No.39/2005 filed by the respondents was allowed and the
khs/JUNE 2017/2901
judgment of the Labour Court dated 04/12/2004 in Complaint (ULP)
No.314/1994 was quashed and set aside.
2. This petition was admitted on 17/04/2006 and interim relief
was refused.
3. I have considered the strenuous submissions of Mr.Rodge,
learned Advocate appointed on behalf of the petitioner by the High
Court Legal Services Sub-Committee and the learned AGP on behalf
of the respondents. With their assistance, I have gone through the
petition paper book and the record available.
4. It is undisputed, keeping in view the pleadings of the petitioner
before the Labour Court, that he alleged oral termination on
13/09/1994. After filing his ULP complaint, he has averred that he
was a seasonal daily wager who was orally appointed to carry out the
activity of spraying DDT. He was orally engaged by the Malaria
Department and he had worked in between Sept.1982 to Sept.1993.
5. The petitioner has produced certain experience certificates,
which were issued to him from time to time by the Malaria
Supervisor. I find from the said certificates that the petitioner used
khs/JUNE 2017/2901
to work intermittently in between 50 days to 90 days in a calendar
year. Whenever the various rounds of spraying DDT were
undertaken by the Malaria Unit, several daily wagers like the
petitioner were called upon to perform the said work. The
respondent/department does not dispute the certificates produced
on record.
6. The Labour Court, Aurangabad concluded by judgment dated
04/12/2012 that the respondent has violated Section 25-F and the
law of seniority and hence the petitioner deserves reinstatement in
service with continuity and full back wages.
7. In the revision filed by the respondents, the Industrial Court
concluded that there was no dispute about the intermittent working
of the petitioner. He had never worked for 240 days in a calendar
year or even for 120 days in any season. He used to work in between
20 to 30 days in some periods and about 40-60 days in different
periods. Whenever the rounds of spraying DDT were undertaken,
such daily wagers were called upon to perform the activity and were
relieved after the spraying rounds were over. The Industrial Court,
therefore, set aside the judgment of the Labour Court by the
impugned judgment dated 10/10/2005.
khs/JUNE 2017/2901
8. I do not find that the Industrial Court has committed any error
since daily wagers who were engaged only during the spraying
rounds cannot be granted reinstatement with continuity of service
and full back wages. At best, the Health Department could have
been directed to engage the services of the petitioner in the same
pattern in which similarly situated daily wagers were engaged during
the spraying rounds.
9. Learned Advocate for the petitioner submits on instructions
from the petitioner who is present in the Court that he is about 58
years old and he had to spend about Rs.25,000/- on medical
treatment as he was suffering from allergies developed on account of
performing the work of spraying DDT. He, however, submits that no
claim under the Employees Compensation Act has been made by the
petitioner.
10. Considering the peculiar facts as recorded above, though I do
not find that the impugned judgment of the Industrial Court could be
termed as being perverse or erroneous, I deem it proper to direct the
respondents/authorities to pay compensation of Rs.25,000/- to the
petitioner within a period of 12 weeks from today considering his
medical expenses, without laying down any precedent.
khs/JUNE 2017/2901
11. This petition is disposed off. Rule is discharged.
12. The fees of learned Advocate Mr.Rodge are quantified at
Rs.5,000/- (Rs.Five thousand only) which the High Court Legal
Services Sub Committee, Aurangabad shall arrange to pay.
( Ravindra V.Ghuge, J.)
khs/JUNE 2017/2901
