Bombay High Court
The Divisional Controller,Msrtc vs Smt.Zaheda Begum Wd/O Ahsanuil ... on 15 May, 2017
Bench: S.B. Shukre
1
IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY,
NAGPUR BENCH : NAGPUR
Writ Petition No. 3539 of 2008
Petitioner : The Divisional Controller, Maharashtra State
Road Transport Corporation, Nagpur
Division, Nagpur
versus
Respondent : Zameer Ahmed abdul Rashid, aged about 52
years, Occ: service, resident of c/o Shammi
Photo Studio, Timki Road, Mominpura,
Nagpur
Shri P. B. Patil, Advocate for petitioner
Shri F. I. Khan, Advocate for respondent
-----------
Writ Petition No. 3540 of 2008
Petitioner : The Divisional Controller, Maharashtra State
Road Transport Corporation, Nagpur
Division, Nagpur
versus
Respondents : 1) Smt Zaheda Begum wd/o Ahsanul Haque,
aged about 54 years, Occ: Household,
2) Mohammad Anwar Ahsanul Haque, aged
about 34 years, Occ: service
3) Mohammad Munnawar s/o Ahsanul Haque,
aged about 32 years, Occ: service
All residents c/o Mannu Cablewala, Behind
Bakramandi, Mominpura, Nagpur
Shri P. B. Patil, Advocate for petitioner
Shri F. I. Khan, Advocate for respondent
-----------
Writ Petition No. 3541 of 2008
Petitioner : The Divisional Controller, Maharashtra State
Road Transport Corporation, Nagpur
Division, Nagpur
versus
Respondents : Shabbir Ahmed Abdul Rashid, aged about 50
years, Occ: service, resident of c/o Shammi
Photo Studio, Timki Road, Mominpura,
Nagpur
Shri P. B. Patil, Advocate for petitioner
Shri F. I. Khan, Advocate for respondent
Coram: S. B. Shukre, J
Dated : 15th May 2017
Oral Judgment
1. Grievance of the petitioner Corporation is common in all these
writ petitions and, therefore, they are disposed of by this common
judgment.
2. Heard Shri P. B. Patil, learned counsel for the petitioner
Corporation and Shri F. I. Khan, learned counsel for the respondents.
Perused the impugned orders and the documents placed on record.
3. It is seen that the applications which were filed under Section
33-C (2) of the Industrial Disputes Act, 1947 by each of the respondents
sought for a direction from the learned Labour Court to the petitioner-
Corporation to pay to the respondents the wages for the interregnum
period. Those applications came to be allowed by the learned Labour
Court by the impugned orders. The learned Labour Court has directed the
amount of wages to carry interest @ 7% per annum.
4. On going through the impugned orders, I find that the
discretion exercised by the learned Labour Court is based on sound
reasoning emanating from the law settled by the Hon'ble Apex Court. The
learned Labour Court has also considered the fact that each of the
respondents has approached the petitioner with a request to take them in
employment, but the same was not accepted by the petitioner and,
therefore, it could not be said that the respondents should not be paid any
wages by applying the principle of "no work, no pay" and rightly so. The
Labour Court has also considered the fact that the Divisional Controller has
also issued a circular accepting the demand of the respondents. The Labour
Court has granted interest on the arrears @ 7% per annum. The interest is
awarded from the date of impugned order till realization. The order seems
to be just and reasonable in the facts and circumstances of the case.
5. The writ petitions, in the circumstances of the case, deserve to
dismissed and are dismissed accordingly. Rule is discharged in all these
petitions. No costs. Respondents are permitted to withdraw the amount
deposited by the petitioner in this Court.
S. B. SHUKRE, J
joshi
