Bombay High Court
Manager Maha.Rajya Sahakari ... vs Hukumchand ... on 9 May, 2017
Bench: R.V. Ghuge
WP/4809/2001
1
IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE OF BOMBAY
BENCH AT AURANGABAD
WRIT PETITION NO. 4809 OF 2001
The Manager,
Maharashtra Rajya Sahakari
Kapus Utpadak Panan Mahasangh
Maryadit, Jalgaon Zone,
Ashirwad Building,
Opposit Natraj Theatre,
Jalgaon. ...Petitioner.
Versus
Hukumchand Ratanlal Chandiwal,
now deceased, through his L.Rs. :
A) Smt. Sulochana W/o. Hukumchand
Jain, Age : 61 years,
B) Sanjay Hukumchand Jain,
Age : 43 years,
C) Anil Hukumchan Jain,
Age : 38 years,
D) Sow. Kiran Ajaykumar Papadiwal,
Age : 40 years,
E) Sow. Warsha Nandkumar Katariya,
Age : 36 years,
All R/o. : Bhikamchand Jain Nagar,
Jalgaon. ...Respondents.
...
Advocate for Petitioner : Shri S.S.Wagh h/f Shri S.T.Shelke
Respondent 1-D : Dismissed vide Court's order dated 09/04/2007.
...
CORAM : RAVINDRA V. GHUGE, J.
Dated: May 09, 2017
...
WP/4809/2001
ORAL JUDGMENT :-
1. The petitioner is aggrieved by the judgment of the Industrial
Court dated 31.8.2001, by which, the Complaint filed by the
deceased respondent has been partly allowed and he has been
granted wages for the period of December 1991 till 7.8.1992 as per
Circular dated 16.10.1991.
2. This petition was admitted on 27.11.2001 and the impugned
judgment of the Industrial Court was stayed. Since the original
complainant had passed away, notice was issued to the legal heirs.
Respondent Nos.1A to C and E have been served and the petition is
dismissed as against Respondent No.1D. The served respondents have
not entered an appearance either in person or through an Advocate.
3. I have considered the submissions of the learned counsel for
the petitioner. Issue is as to whether, the benefit of enhancement of
age by the Circular dated 16.10.1991 could be available to the
deceased respondent, who superannuated on 7.8.1990 at the age of
58 years, as per the law then prevailing. By the said circular, the
retirement age was enhanced by two years.
4. In the impugned judgment, the Industrial Court has concluded
that the Circular that was introduced on 16.10.1991 contains a clause
WP/4809/2001
wherein those daily wagers or temporaries or casuals, clerks,
watchmen etc. who have retired at the age of 58 years and have not
completed 60 years, would be considered for re-employment and will
be continued till they attain 60 years of age.
5. The said circular is reproduced in the impugned judgment. I
have gone through the said Circular, which clearly indicates that
those type of workers mentioned in the first paragraph have retired
at 58 years of age and if they make an application for continuing till
60 years of age, pursuant to the circular, they will be eligible for
such continuation.
6. The impugned judgment also indicates on the basis of the
record that the deceased respondent, who retired at the age of 58
years on 7.8.1990, had made the application when he had about 9
months left for attaining the age of 60 years. His application was
entertained and he was also subjected to medical examination.
Despite being eligible, the petitioner did not allow the application of
the deceased respondent even after producing the physical fitness
certificate as per the requirement set out in the circular. It is in this
backdrop that the Industrial Court directed the petitioner to pay
wages from 1.12.1991 till 7.8.1992, which was the period the
deceased could have enjoyed in employment. There is no dispute
that he would have attained 60 years of age on 7.8.1992.
WP/4809/2001
7. Considering the above and the finding on facts, I do not find
that the impugned judgment of the Industrial Court could be termed
as being perverse or erroneous. This petition being devoid of merits
is, therefore, dismissed. Rule is discharged.
8. It is expected that the petitioner would make the payments of
the amounts as directed in the impugned judgment to the wife of the
deceased / respondent No.1A - Smt. Sulochana, within a period of 12
weeks from today, failing which the said amount will attract interest
@ 6% per annum from the date of the judgment of the Industrial
Court.
( RAVINDRA V. GHUGE, J. )
...
akl/d
