Bombay High Court
The State Of Maharashtra And Ors vs Gangaram Mahadu Sananse on 12 May, 2017
Bench: R.V. Ghuge
WP/1419/2002
1
IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE OF BOMBAY
BENCH AT AURANGABAD
WRIT PETITION NO. 1419 OF 2002
1. The State of Maharashtra,
Through Government Pleader,
High Court, Aurangabad.
2. The Divisional Soil Conservation
Officer, Divisional Soil Conservation
Office, Damadi Mahal, Aurangabad
Now merged in to Divisional
Agriculture Office, Aurangabad.
3. The Sub-Divisional Agriculture
Officer, Sillod, Tq. Sillod,
District Aurangabad.
4. Taluka Agriculture Officer,
Sillod, Tq. Sillod, Dist. Aurangabad. ..Petitioners
Versus
Gangaram Mahadu Sananse,
Died, through L.Rs.
1. Smt. Sulochanabai Gangaram
Sananse, age 65 years,
R/o Undangaon, Tq. Sillod,
District Aurangabad.
2. Archana Yashwant Navale
(Daughter of Gangaram),
Age 26 years,
R/o Undangaon, Tq. Sillod,
District Aurangabad.
3. Kalpana Gangaram Sananse,
Age 24 years,
R/o Undangaon, Tq. Sillod,
District Aurangabad. ..Respondents
...
::: Uploaded on - 15/05/2017 ::: Downloaded on - 17/05/2017 00:33:58 :::
WP/1419/2002
2
AGP for Petitioners : Shri A.R.Borulkar
Advocate for Respondent : Shri N.J.Pahune Patil
...
CORAM : RAVINDRA V. GHUGE, J.
Dated: May 12, 2017
...
ORAL JUDGMENT :-
1. The petitioners are aggrieved by the judgment dated
31.2.2002, delivered by the Labour Court, Aurangabad by which
Application (IDA) No. 58 of 1990 filed by the respondent under
Section 33-C(2) was allowed and the petitioner was directed to pay
an amount of Rs.19214/- along with simple interest at the rate of 12%
per annum.
2. This Court has admitted this petition by order dated 10.2.2003
and directed the petitioners to deposit the entire amount including
the interest within four weeks. With this condition of deposit,
interim relief in terms of prayer clause (c) was granted.
3. I have heard the submissions of the learned AGP on behalf of
the petitioners and the learned counsel on behalf of the respondent.
4. There is no dispute that the application under Section 33-C(2)
was filed by the respondent in the light of the directions of the
Industrial Court dated 5.10.1999 in Complaint (ULP) No.270 of 1985,
WP/1419/2002
which read as under:-
"1. Whenever the work is available the respondent shall
provide the work to the complaint pending the decision of the
complaint.
2. Whenever the complainant reports for duty and renders
services he shall be paid the wages as prescribed under the
Government Resolution.
3. The complainant cannot claim that the work should be
provided to him only at a particular place.
4. The complainant cannot claim that he should be
provided with the work of only supervisory nature and he
should not be provided the work involving physical labour."
5. The respondent had approached the Labour Court on the
ground that after the above order was passed by the Industrial Court
he has made several applications for allotment of work. Work was
available. The petitioners did not deliberately allot him the work.
Therefore, this deliberate denial should be presumed to mean that
the respondent was on duty during the said period and hence it
should be presumed that he was entitled for the said wages as are
claimed in the said application.
6. I find that the Labour Court after considering the averments of
WP/1419/2002
the respondent has concluded in paragraph 6 that as the petitioners
did not prove that no work was available, as they did not prove that
work could not be allotted to the respondent and as they could not
prove that the respondent / workman was not entitled for wages, it
will have to be presumed that the respondent was entitled for the
wages as he had demanded work.
7. I find that the Labour Court has misdirected itself in so far as
it's jurisdiction under Section 33-C(2) of the ID Act is concerned.
Section 33-C(2) reads as under:-
"Section 33C - Recovery of money due from an employer.
(2) Where any workman is entitled to receive from the
employer any money or any benefit which is capable of being
computed in terms of money and if any question arises as to the
amount of money due or as to the amount at which such benefit
should be computed, then the question may, subject to any
rules that may be made under this Act, be decided by such
Labour Court as may be specified in this behalf by the
appropriate Government within a period not exceeding three
months.
Provided that where the presiding officer of a Labour
Court considers it necessary or expedient so to do, he may, for
reasons to be recorded in writing, extend such period by such
further period as he may think fit"
8. It has also come on record that the respondent was working on
WP/1419/2002
EGS. Notwithstanding this aspect, it is not within the jurisdiction of
the Labour Court to resort to a roving enquiry by finding out whether
work can be said to be available, whether work could have been
made available, whether such work could have been allotted to the
workman and on failure of the establishment in doing so, whether it
could be presumed that the respondent was deemed to be on duty
and therefore, presumed to be entitled for wages.
9. Considering the above, this petition is allowed. The impugned
judgment of the Labour Court dated 31.1.2002 is quashed and set
aside and Application (IDA) No.58 of 1990 stands rejected. Rule is
made absolute accordingly.
10. Learned counsel for the respondent submits that after the
amount was deposited by the petitioners, the respondent may have
withdrawn the same. So also, the respondent has now passed away.
11. In the light of the above, it needs to be noted that if the
amount is not deposited by the petitioners or if it is deposited and
not withdrawn by the respondent, the Registry shall permit the
petitioners to withdraw the said amount along with the accrued
interest, having succeeded in this petition. However, if the amount
is deposited and the respondent has already withdrawn the said
amount before he passed away, the petitioners would be precluded
WP/1419/2002
from recovering the said amount from the legal heirs of the deceased
respondent.
( RAVINDRA V. GHUGE, J. )
...
akl/d
