Bombay High Court
Chief Administrator Labha ... vs Mahdeo Narayan Dhane on 2 March, 2017
Bench: R.V. Ghuge
(1) W.P. Nos. 4468, 4469 &
4470 of 2001
IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY,
AURANGABAD BENCH, AT AURANGABAD.
Writ Petition No. 4468 of 2001
District : Aurangabad
The Chief Administrator, .. Petitioner
Labha Kshetra Vikas Pradhikaran, (Original
Garkheda, Aurangabad. Party No.01)
versus
Shri Mahadeo Narayan Dhane,
Age : 45 years,
Occupation : Nil, .. Respondent
R/o. C/o. Modern General Stores, (Original
Pathari, Dist. Parbhani. party No.02)
With
Writ Petition No. 4469 of 2001
District : Aurangabad
The Chief Administrator, .. Petitioner
Labha Kshetra Vikas Pradhikaran, (Original
Garkheda, Aurangabad. Party No.01)
versus
Shri Rama Baburao Gonge,
Age : 45 years,
Occupation : Nil, .. Respondent
R/o. Potewadi, Post Pathari (Original
Taluka Pathari, Dist. Parbhani. party No.02)
::: Uploaded on - 07/03/2017 ::: Downloaded on - 08/03/2017 00:37:21 :::
(2) W.P. Nos. 4468, 4469 &
4470 of 2001
With
Writ Petition No. 4470 of 2001
District : Aurangabad
The Chief Administrator, .. Petitioner
Labha Kshetra Vikas Pradhikaran, (Original
Garkheda, Aurangabad. Party No.01)
versus
Shri Namdeo Dulbaji Kharat,
Age : 45 years,
Occupation : Nil, .. Respondent
R/o. Zari, Taluka Pathari (Original
Dist. Parbhani. party No.02)
...........
Mr. S.S. Thombre, Advocate, for the petitioner.
Mr. V.B. Garud, Advocate, for the respondents.
...........
CORAM : RAVINDRA V. GHUGE, J.
DATE : 02ND MARCH 2017
ORAL JUDGMENT :
01. In all these petitions, the petitioner -
establishment is aggrieved by the award dated
26.06.2001, by which, Reference (IDA) No. 15/1993,
Reference (IDA) No. 188/1992 and Reference (IDA) No.
13/1993 have been partly allowed. The respondents -
workmen are granted re-appointment from 30.01.1993.
Continuity and back wages are not granted.
(3) W.P. Nos. 4468, 4469 &
4470 of 2001
02. The operative part of the impugned award
reads as under :-
"1. The Reference is answered partly in affirmative.
2. The party No.1 is hereby directed to give re-
appointment to the party No.2 from the date of Reference i.e.
30.01.1993 with continuity of service but without back wages
in Class IV category.
3. The claim of reinstatement with continuity and also with
full back wages from the date of termination is denied.
4. No order as to costs.
5. This Award be submitted to the State Government of
Industries & Labour Department, Mantralaya, Mumbai, through
the Dy. Commissioner of Labour, Aurangabad.
6. The original papers of conciliation be sent to the Dy.
Commissioner of Labour, Aurangabad, under intimation to the
Government. "
03. In all these petitions, while passing the
order on admission, no interim relief was granted to
the establishment. Consequentially, it is informed
that all these three respondents have been given
fresh appointment on 15.12.2004. The respondent in
the first petition - Mahadeo Narayan Dhane has
attained the age of superannuation on 31.07.2014 and
the respondent in the third petition - Namdeo Dulbaji
Kharat has attained the age of superannuation on
20.02.2010. The respondent in the second petition -
Rama Baburao Gonge is still in employment and his
(4) W.P. Nos. 4468, 4469 &
4470 of 2001
retirement would be on 14.08.2019.
04. The Labour Court while partly answering the
references in the affirmative, has concluded that
some daily wagers were engaged in place of these
respondents and hence Section 25H of the Industrial
Disputes Act, 1947, has been violated. There is no
dispute that these respondents were appointed on a
project undertaken by the Government for the
construction of the Jayakwadi Canal and Dam. The
Superintending Engineer of the Jayakwadi Project had
engaged such daily wagers purely for the said
project. Hundreds of workers were engaged. It is
equally undisputed that after the project came to an
end, all such employees who were appointed as daily
wagers purely on the said project were given three
months' notice and were disengaged. These
respondents - workmen remained silent for a period of
almost 08 years before raising an industrial dispute.
05. In the impugned awards, the Labour Court has
concluded that the reference cases with regard to the
alleged illegal termination of the claimants was not
maintainable as it was a stale dispute. None of
these workers have challenged the said findings
before this Court and have accepted the said
conclusion.
06. In so far as the violation of Section 25H of
the Industrial Disputes Act is concerned, by which
(5) W.P. Nos. 4468, 4469 &
4470 of 2001
the Labour Court concluded that fresh hands were
engaged and the respondents - workmen were
disengaged, I find that the Labour Court has merely
concluded that just because daily wagers were engaged
and the respondents were disengaged, Section 25H has
been violated and hence the respondents would be
entitled for a fresh appointment from the date of the
reference which is 30.01.1993.
07. In my view, considering that the petitioner
is a State instrumentality and since sanctioned posts
are not available, they are required to engage daily
wagers to ensure that the work is not hampered, the
Labour Court was not justified in directing issuance
of fresh appointments with retrospective effect.
These daily wagers were not in employment from
30.01.1993. The impugned awards were delivered on
26.06.2001. Considering that the petitioners are
State instrumentalities and these daily wagers who
have not worked over a period of 08 years from 1993
till 2001, so also, they were sleeping over their
purported termination from 1984 till 1993, the Labour
Court cannot be said to be justified in directing
fresh appointment with retrospective effect.
08. In the light of the above, these petitions
are partly allowed. Clause 02 of the direction of
the Labour Court in the impugned award shall stand
modified.
(6) W.P. Nos. 4468, 4469 &
4470 of 2001
These respondents shall stand re-
appointed in service from 01.07.2001,
considering that the impugned award in
their favour was delivered on 26.06.2001
and this Court has not stayed the award.
For the period from 01.07.2001 till
14.12.2004, keeping in view that these
respondents were reinstated on 15.12.2004,
the petitioner shall pay 25 % back wages to
these respondents for the said period
within 12 weeks from today, failing which
the said amount shall carry interest at the
rate of 06 % from the date of the award of
the Labour Court.
09. Rule is made partly absolute in the above
terms.
( Ravindra V. Ghuge )
JUDGE
...........
puranik / WP4468.01etc
