The Exe. Engineer, Special ... vs Ramesh Krushnarao Deshmukh
2017 Latest Caselaw 8589 Bom

 Judgment                                           1                                wp1678.10.odt




                IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY,
                 

                          NAGPUR BENCH, NAGPUR.


                           WRIT PETITION NO. 1678 OF 2010


 1.       The Executive Engineer, 
          Special Project Division, 
          Amravati, Tq. & District : 
          Amravati.

 2.       The Sub Divisional Officer,
          Public Works Sub Division, 
          Chandur Railway, Tq. Chandur
          Rly, District : Amravati. 
                                                                      ....  PETITIONERS.

                                     //  VERSUS //

 Ramesh Krushnarao Deshmukh,
 Aged about 45 years, 
 R/o. Rajura, Tq. Chandur Railway,
 District : Amravati. 

                                                    .... RESPONDENT
                                                                     .
  ___________________________________________________________________
 Shri N.R.Patil, A.G.P. for Petitioners. 
 Shri N.R.Saboo, Advocate for Respondent. 
 ___________________________________________________________________

                              CORAM : Z.A.HAQ, J.

DATED : NOVEMBER 09, 2017.

ORAL JUDGMENT :

1. Heard.

2. The petitioners (employer) have challenged the award passed

by the Labour Court answering the reference in favour of the respondent/

Judgment 2 wp1678.10.odt

employee and directing the employer to reinstate the employee with

continuity of service. The claim of the employee for back-wages is rejected.

3. The undisputed facts are that the respondent/employee was

engaged from 30th January, 1984 till 1st November, 1985 and was not

continued from 1st November, 1985. The Labour Court, after considering the

evidence has recorded a finding of fact that the respondent/ employee was in

employment for more than 240 days continuously in the year preceding his

termination. The employer has not been able to point out any perversity in

the finding of fact recorded by the Labour Court.

4. The employer contends that the claim made by the employee

was a stale claim having been made after more than 10 years and therefore,

the Labour Court should not have granted relief to the employee. The

submission cannot be accepted in the facts of the case. The Labour Court has

considered this aspect of delay and laches in paragraph 12 of the impugned

order. I see no reason to interfere with the conclusions recorded by the

Labour Court on this point.

5. The only point which is required to be considered is, whether it

is right on the part of the Labour Court to direct the reinstatement of the

respondent/employee after 24 years.

Judgment 3 wp1678.10.odt

6. The learned A.G.P. has rightly relied on the judgment given by

the Hon'ble Supreme Court in the case of Incharge Officer vs. Shankar Shetty,

reported in (2010) 9 SCC 126, which in my view, covers the point to be

decided in the present petition. The learned A.G.P. has also pointed out the

judgment given by this Court in Writ Petition No. 4568 of 2009 on 27 th April,

2017 in which the respondent was engaged/ employed by the present

petitioners along with the present respondent.

Considering the proposition laid down in the judgment given in

the case of Shankar Shetty (supra) and also considering the judgment given

in Writ Petition No.4568 of 2009, in my view, the impugned order is required

to be modified and it has to be held that instead of reinstatement, the

respondent/ employee is entitled for compensation.

7. Hence, the following order:

The directions given by the Labour Court to the petitioners to

reinstate the respondent/ employee are set aside.

The petitioners shall pay Rs.Fifty Thousand as compensation in

lieu of reinstatement to the respondent-employee till 30 th January, 2018. If

the petitioners are unable to pay the amount directly to the respondent-

employee, the amount shall be deposited before the Labour Court, Amravati

till 30th January, 2018 and on deposit of the amount the same shall be given

to the respondent/ employee.

Judgment 4 wp1678.10.odt

If the petitioners fail to pay/ deposit the amount till 30 th

January, 2018, they will be liable to pay interest @ 9% per annum to the

respondent/employee, the interest being chargeable from today till the

amount is paid/ deposited.

The order passed by the Labour Court is modified accordingly.

The petition is partly allowed in the above terms. In the

circumstances, the parties to bear their own costs.

JUDGE

RRaut..