Bombay High Court
The State Of Maharashtra & Anr vs Yogini Balwant Kulkarni on 11 May, 2017
Bench: R.V. Ghuge
*1* 901.wp.2940.00
IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY
BENCH AT AURANGABAD
WRIT PETITION NO. 2940 OF 2000
1 The State of Maharashtra.
Through the Deputy Director
(now Joint Director),
Technical Education,
Regional Office,
Ex. Distilleries Barrack,
Nashik Road, Nashik.
2 The Principal,
Government Polytechnic,
Ahmednagar.
...PETITIONERS
-VERSUS-
Smt.Yogini Balvant Kulkarni,
444, Hudco Colony, Savedi Road,
Ahmednagar.
...RESPONDENT
...
AGP for Petitioners/ State : Shri N.T.Bhagat.
Advocate for Respondent : Shri Barde Parag Vijay.
...
CORAM: RAVINDRA V. GHUGE, J.
DATE :- 11th May, 2017
Oral Judgment :
1 The Petitioners are aggrieved by the judgment dated
21.02.2000 by which the Labour Court has allowed the Application (IDA)
No.71/1993 filed by the Respondent under Section 33-C(2) of the
*2* 901.wp.2940.00
Industrial Disputes Act, 1947.
2 I have considered the strenuous submissions of the learned
AGP appearing for the Petitioners/ State and the learned counsel for the
Respondent/ Employee. With the assistance of the learned AGP, I have
gone through the grounds set out in the memo of the petition.
3 With regard to the payment of bonus and leave encashment is
concerned, the Labour Court has observed in paragraph 7 that during the
pendency of the said application, the Petitioners have paid the bonus to
the Respondent for the year 1992-1993. So also, leave encashment has
been credited to the extent of 76 days in favour of the Respondent. These
two issues did not survive when the Labour Court decided the application.
4 Insofar as the eligibility of the Respondent to annual
increment is concerned, the State has issued the Government Resolution
dated 24.05.2002 which is subsequent to the impugned judgment. By the
said Government Resolution, temporary employees, who are in
employment for more than a year and are continued as such, are held
entitled for annual increment. However, an earlier Government Resolution
dated 01.09.1999 indicated a similar provision and annual increments
were extended to the daily wagers as like the Respondent herein.
*3* 901.wp.2940.00
5 Considering the above, I do not find that the impugned
judgment could be termed as being perverse or erroneous.
6 By order dated 11.04.2001 while admitting this petition, this
Court had stayed the benefits awarded to the Respondent for the period
prior to 01.09.1999.
7 Since this Writ Petition is not being entertained, it is expected
that the Petitioners would clear the legal dues of the Respondent, if still
not paid, as expeditiously as possible and preferably within a period of
TWELVE WEEKS from today, failing which the said amount would carry
interest at the rate of 6% per annum from the date of the impugned
judgment of the Labour Court.
8 This Writ Petition being devoid of merit is, therefore,
dismissed. Rule is discharged.
kps (RAVINDRA V. GHUGE, J.)
