Bombay High Court
State Of Maharashtra And Anr vs Sakharam Shankarrao Pimple And ... on 3 March, 2017
Bench: R.V. Ghuge
*1* 903.wp.2339.98
IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY
BENCH AT AURANGABAD
WRIT PETITION NO. 2339 OF 1998
1 The State of Maharashtra.
2 The Sub Division Forest Officer,
Central Building,
Nagar Road, Beed.
...PETITIONERS
-VERSUS-
1 Sakharam Shankarrao Pimpale,
C/o Trade Union Centre,
Bashirganj, Beed.
2 The Labour Court,
Aurangabad.
3 The Industrial Court,
Aurangabad.
...RESPONDENTS
...
AGP for Petitioners : Ms.S.S.Raut.
...
CORAM: RAVINDRA V. GHUGE, J.
DATE :- 03rd March, 2017
Oral Judgment :
1 This Writ Petition is on the final hearing board dated
02.02.2017. The final hearing matters are taken up every Thursday. None
appeared for Respondent No.1 on 02.03.2017. Yet, I adjourned the matter.
*2* 903.wp.2339.98
Even today, none appears.
2 Respondent Nos.2 and 3 are the Labour Court and the
Industrial Court. Hence, they stand deleted from these proceedings.
3 The Petitioner is aggrieved by the judgment of the Labour
Court dated 03.10.1989 by which Complaint (ULP) No.107/1987 has
been allowed and Respondent No.1/ Employee is granted reinstatement
with continuity and back wages. The Petitioner is also aggrieved by the
judgment of the Industrial Court dated 17.02.1995 by which Revision
(ULP) No.4/1993 filed by the Petitioner, has been dismissed.
4 I have considered the submissions of the learned AGP on
behalf of the Petitioner.
5 In my view, a single glance at the impugned judgments would
convince me that both the judgments are cryptic in nature, without
assigning any reason and unsustainable in law.
6 In a single paragraph No.5, the Labour Court has allowed the
complaint with the following observations:-
"5. The respondent being exparte, the complainant is
*3* 903.wp.2339.98
allowed to lead evidence by affidavit. The complainant
has filed his affidavit at Exhibit U-3 and has proved
the contents of the complaint and his case. The
respondent being exparte, the evidence of the
complainant goes unchallenged. I, therefore, pass the
following order, answering all the points in
affirmative, in favour of the complainant."
7 It is, therefore, apparent that merely because the Petitioner
did not appear in the proceedings, the Labour Court has allowed the
complaint only on the basis of the affidavit Exhibit U/3 filed by the
Respondent without there being any documentary or corroborative
evidence before the Labour Court. The reinstatement with continuity and
full back wages have been granted apparently without application of
mind.
8 It was expected that the Industrial Court would notice the
perversity in the impugned judgment. Surprisingly, the Industrial Court in
a single paragraph order has dismissed the revision petition on the ground
that as the judgment of the Labour Court is ex-parte, it has rightly relied
upon the affidavit of the workman and allowed the complaint.
9 This Court, in the matter of Abbott Laboratories (India) Ltd.
v/s Shri J.D. Jamdar, Member, Industrial Court and another, 1995(3)
Bom.C.R. 425, has concluded that the ULP complaint cannot be allowed
*4* 903.wp.2339.98
merely on the basis of the affidavit. Notwithstanding that the Respondent
has not participated in the proceedings, every Court is expected to apply
it's mind to the oral and documentary evidence and only after being
convinced that the employee has proved unfair labour practices having
been committed by the employer, that the Labour Court or the Industrial
Court could grant any relief.
10 In the light of the above, this petition is partly allowed. Both
the impugned judgments of the Industrial Court and the Labour Court are
quashed and set aside. Revision (ULP) No.4/1993 stands disposed of.
Considering that the judgment of the Labour Court dated 03.10.1989 is
delivered ex-parte without any evidence on record, the said judgment is
also quashed and set aside.
11 To ensure that the ends of justice are met, Complaint (ULP)
No.107/1987 could have been remitted to the Labour Court by imposing
costs of Rs.25,000/- on the Petitioner for negligence on its part. However,
I cannot ignore that the Respondent has claimed to be working only for
one year from 05.04.1986 and was orally terminated on 07.06.1987. The
Petitioner contends that the Respondent has not worked continuously. He
was appointed on daily wages at the rate of Rs.7.60 per day on
05.04.1986. He was never terminated and he had never completed 240
*5* 903.wp.2339.98
days in continuous service.
12 In the above backdrop, even if the complaint is remitted to
the Labour Court and even if the Respondent/original Complainant
succeeds in proving the completion of 240 days, he has worked only for
one year. From June, 1987, he is not in employment for the past almost 30
years. Naturally, there cannot be any reinstatement in the light of the
following four judgments of the Honourable Supreme Court:-
(a) Assistant Engineer, Rajasthan State Agriculture Marketing
Board, Sub-Division, Kota Vs. Mohanlal, [2013 LLR 1009];
(b) Assistant Engineer, Rajasthan Development Corporation and
another Vs. Gitam Singh, [(2013) 5 SCC 136];
(c) BSNL Vs. Man Singh, (2012) 1 SCC 558; and
(d) Jagbir Singh Vs. Haryana State Agriculture Marketing Board,
[(2009) 15 SCC 327].
13 In the light of the above, no purpose would be served by
remitting the matter to the Labour Court after 30 years. Instead, the costs
can be quantified by way of compensation and the same can be paid to the
Respondent so as to bring an end to this litigation.
*6* 903.wp.2339.98
14 The Petitioner shall deposit costs of Rs.25,000/- (Rupees
Twenty Five Thousand) in this Court by way of a lump-sum compensation
payable to the Respondent/ Employee in lieu of all claims arising out of
his employment and non-employment. The said amount shall be deposited
within EIGHT WEEKS from today. Thereafter, the Respondent would be at
liberty to withdraw the said amount by making an application duly
identified by his Advocate along with a recent photograph and tangible
evidence of his identity in the form of the Election Commission's Voters
Identity Card.
15 Rule is made partly absolute in the above terms.
kps (RAVINDRA V. GHUGE, J.)
