Bombay High Court
State Of Maharashtra vs Anjabapu Jagdeo Rakate on 2 March, 2017
Bench: R.V. Ghuge
(1) W.P. Nos. 02421, 02422
& 02423 of 1998
IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY,
AURANGABAD BENCH, AT AURANGABAD.
Writ Petition No. 02421 of 1998
District : Ahmednagar
The State of Maharashtra,
through Executive Engineer,
Public Works Department, .. Petitioner
Sangamner, Dist. Ahmednagar. (Original first party)
versus
Anjabapu Jagadeo Rakate,
Age : 26 years,
R/o. Dhangarwadi,
Post Wakadi,
Taluka Shrirampur, .. Respondent
District Ahmednagar. (Original second party)
With
Writ Petition No. 02422 of 1998
District : Ahmednagar
The State of Maharashtra,
through Executive Engineer,
Public Works Department, .. Petitioner
Sangamner, Dist. Ahmednagar. (Original first party)
versus
Sitaram Dagadu Rashinkar,
Age : Major,
R/o. Dhangarwadi,
Post Wakadi,
Taluka Shrirampur, .. Respondent
District Ahmednagar. (Original second party)
With
::: Uploaded on - 07/03/2017 ::: Downloaded on - 08/03/2017 00:37:26 :::
(2) W.P. Nos. 02421, 02422
& 02423 of 1998
Writ Petition No. 02423 of 1998
District : Ahmednagar
The State of Maharashtra,
through Executive Engineer,
Public Works Department, .. Petitioner
Sangamner, Dist. Ahmednagar. (Original first party)
versus
Dnyandeo Tukaram Admane,
Age : 29 years,
R/o. Dhangarwadi,
Post Wakadi,
Taluka Shrirampur, .. Respondent
District Ahmednagar. (Original second party)
...........
Mr. S.N. Kendre, Mr. N.T. Bhagat and
Mr. S.P. Tiwari, Asst. Government Pleaders,
for the petitioner.
Mr. N.C. Garud, Advocate, for the respondents.
...........
CORAM : RAVINDRA V. GHUGE, J.
DATE : 02ND MARCH 2017
ORAL JUDGMENT :
01. In all these petitions, the petitioners
have challenged the identical judgment and award
dated 30.07.1997 in Reference (IDA) No. 032/1990,
Reference (IDA) No. 035/1990 and Reference (IDA)
No. 034/1990. The directions issued by the Labour
Court, identically in all these three matters,
read as under:-
(3) W.P. Nos. 02421, 02422
& 02423 of 1998
" Reference is partly allowed.
The First Party is hereby directed to take the Second
Party workman as a majoor on daily wages at prevailing rate
without continuity of service and back wages.
Order to take effect from the date of Order. "
02. While admitting these matters, this Court
has stayed the above said directions.
03. I have heard the learned Asst. Government
Pleader for the petitioner and Shri Garud,
learned Advocate appearing on behalf of the
respondents. With their assistance, I have gone
through the petitions and annexures thereto.
04. The Labour Court has framed following
issues in the References before it and has
assigned answers thereto as under :-
Issues Findings
1. Does the second party prove
that the first party
terminated his services -- In the negative
illegally and improperly ?
2. Does the second party prove
that he is entitled for the
reinstatement and back -- In the negative
wages ?
3. What order ? -- As per final order.
(4) W.P. Nos. 02421, 02422
& 02423 of 1998
05. It is, therefore, apparent that the
Labour Court concluded that the termination of
these respondents was not illegal, was not
improper and they were not entitled for
reinstatement and back wages. In all these
matters, the Labour Court concluded that these
respondents had not worked for 240 days in
continuous employment with the petitioner and as
such, they were not entitled for any relief as
Section 25F of the Industrial Disputes Act, 1947,
has not been attracted. It was also concluded
that there was no appointment order and none of
these respondents are, therefore, entitled to any
relief in the reference case.
06. Notwithstanding the above, the Labour
Court has arrived at a strange conclusion in
paragraph 11 of these impugned judgments, as
under :-
" It is proved that the workman was working as a majoor on
daily wages. Admittedly the first party is a Government
Establishment namely Public Works Department, doing work of
repairing and levelling roads and painting trees etc. Therefore, it
must be having work which can be provided to the majoor.
Considering this fact, I am of the view that direction may be given
to the first party to give the work to the workman as a majoor as
he has already worked for the first party as a majoor. "
(5) W.P. Nos. 02421, 02422
& 02423 of 1998
07. It is trite law that unless an illegality
in the act of the respondent is proved and unless
termination or disengagement of an employee is
proved to be unsustainable and amounting to
illegal retrenchment, no relief can be granted.
It is equally settled that the employer /
Establishment has to be held guilty of committing
illegal acts of terminating the employees and
only then the Labour Court can grant
consequential reliefs.
08. I am astonished to note that when the
Labour Court has specifically come to the
conclusion that none of these respondents are
entitled to any relief in these reference
proceedings, the Labour Court suddenly concludes
in paragraph 11 that as the petitioner is a
Government Establishment, repairing and levelling
of roads and painting of trees is constantly done
and hence, the respondents should be given
employment as a daily wager. The said conclusion
is apparently in opposition to the law laid down
by the Hon'ble Apex Court and which has been
reiterated in its judgment delivered in the case
of Secretary, State of Karnataka Vs. Umadevi & others
[(2006) 4 SCC 1]. In public employment, such
directions based on misplaced sympathy and in the
(6) W.P. Nos. 02421, 02422
& 02423 of 1998
absence of any illegality committed by the
establishment, cannot be sustained.
09. Shri Garud, learned Advocate for the
respondents, strenuously submits that some
compensation be granted to these respondents. He
cites an example where this Court has granted
such compensation. I find his submissions to be
fallacious for the reason that this Court has
granted compensation to those employees who have
proved that they have worked continuously for a
few years, had proved illegal termination and
reinstatement in service was not practical and
pragmatic owing to a long spell of unemployment
during the litigation. This Court had granted
compensation relying upon the following four
judgments :-
(1) Asst. Engineer, Rajasthan State Agriculture
Marketing Board, Sub-Division, Kota Vs.
Mohanlal [2013 LLR 1009];
(2) Asst. Engineer, Rajasthan Development
Corporation & another Vs. Giram Singh
[(2013) 5 SCC 136].
(3) BSNL Vs. Man Singh [(2012) 1 SCC 558]
(4) Jagbir Singh Vs. Haryana State Agriculture
Marketing Board
[(2009) 15 SCC 327].
(7) W.P. Nos. 02421, 02422
& 02423 of 1998
10. In the light of the above, these
petitions are allowed. The impugned awards dated
30.07.1997 are quashed and set aside and
Reference (IDA) No. 032/1990, Reference (IDA) No.
035/1990 and Reference (IDA) No. 034/1990,
respectively, are answered in the negative.
11. Rule is made absolute in the above terms.
( Ravindra V. Ghuge )
JUDGE
.............
puranik / WP2421.98etc
