Bombay High Court
Executive Director ... vs Sarangdhar Narayan Bairagi on 22 June, 2017
Bench: R.V. Ghuge
WP/3209/2000
1
IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE OF BOMBAY
BENCH AT AURANGABAD
WRIT PETITION NO. 3209 OF 2000
1.Executive Director,
The Maharashtra State Cooperative
Cotton Growers Marketing
Federation Limited, Head Office,
Nagpur.
2. The Zonal Manager,
The Maharashtra State Cooperative
Cotton Growers Marketing
Federation Limited, Zonal Office,
Jalgaon. ..Petitioners
Versus
Sarangdhar Narayan Bairagi,
Age major, R/o Near Mahadeo
Mandir, Jamner, Dist.Jalgaon. ..Respondent
...
Advocate for Petitioner : Shri S.T.Shelke
...
CORAM : RAVINDRA V. GHUGE, J.
Dated: June 22, 2017
...
ORAL JUDGMENT :-
1. The petitioners are aggrieved by the order dated 10.5.2000,
delivered by the Labour Court, by which, Application (IDA) No.55 of
1995 has been partly allowed and the petitioners are directed to pay
an amount of Rs. 39947/- towards wages, Rs.4460/- towards earned
leave, Rs.800/- towards medical reimbursement and Rs.800/-
towards leave travel along with 9% per annum interest.
WP/3209/2000
2. On 16.6.2017, none appeared for the respondent. Even today,
none appears for the respondent.
3. I have heard the learned counsel for the petitioners and have
gone through the record available.
4. Section 33-C(2) of the Industrial Disputes Act, reads as under:-
"Section 33C - Recovery of money due from an employer.
(2) Where any workman is entitled to receive from the
employer any money or any benefit which is capable of being
computed in terms of money and if any question arises as to the
amount of money due or as to the amount at which such benefit
should be computed, then the question may, subject to any
rules that may be made under this Act, be decided by such
Labour Court as may be specified in this behalf by the
appropriate Government within a period not exceeding three
months.
Provided that where the presiding officer of a Labour
Court considers it necessary or expedient so to do, he may, for
reasons to be recorded in writing, extend such period by such
further period as he may think fit."
5. It is undisputed that the respondent was born on 26.11.1935
and his retirement age, as per Rule 12 of the petitioners /
establishment is 58 years. The impugned judgment reflects this
WP/3209/2000
admitted position.
6. The respondent was superannuated on 25.11.1993 after
working hours, having completed 58 years of age. He received
another retirement order on 6.1.1994, when he had actually retired
from 26.11.1993. Thereafter, he again received a retirement notice
dated 1.7.1994. Contention is that in between 26.11.1993 till
6.1.1994, the respondent was temporarily taken into service post
retirement as he was physically and mentally fit.
7. A claim was put-forth under Section 33-C(2) alleging that he
should be paid wages for the periods 26.11.1993 till 6.1.1994,
7.1.1994 to 15.2.1994 and 2.7.1994 till 11.5.1995 as he was sitting
idle at home. Based on the said claim, he demanded leave
encashment, bonus and medical reimbursement. The Labour Court
has partly allowed the claim on the ground that the respondent was
unauthorizedly retired, since he could have worked till 26.11.1995
and could have been retired on completion of 60 years of age.
8. It is trite law that Section 33-C(2) provides for entertaining
claims of money, based on preexisting rights. Assessment of such
money on existing rights and arithmetical calculations can also be
undertaken under Section 33-C(2). However, seriously disputed and
contentious issues like, whether the retirement age is of 58 years or
WP/3209/2000
60 years and whether the claimant was unnecessarily sitting idle and
hence entitled for wages and other ancillary claims, cannot be gone
into under Section 33-C(2). Moreover, no law or service condtioon
was pointed out before the Labour Court to indicate that the
respondent had a vested right to continue in service till the age of 60
years.
9. This Court while admitting the petition on 25.7.2000, has
stayed the impugned judgment by granting prayer clause (c).
10. Considering the above and the crystallized position of law, this
petition is allowed. The impugned order dated 10.5.2000 stands
quashed and set aside and Application (IDA) No.55 of 1995 stands
rejected. Rule is made absolute in these terms.
11. In order to ensure that the respondent is not rendered
remediless, he would be at liberty to raise an industrial dispute
under the Industrial Disputes Act, 1947 for putting forth any claims
based on such disputed issues, if so desired.
( RAVINDRA V. GHUGE, J. )
...
akl/d
