Chief Executive Officer Zilla ... vs Rupchand S/O Pundlik Kadu And ...
2017 Latest Caselaw 6793 Bom

        wp6191.15 and wp3899.16.cJ.odt                                                                         1/7   


                  IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY
                                        NAGPUR BENCH, NAGPUR


                                WRIT PETITION NO. 6191 OF 2015


        1]   Secretary, Temasna Gram Panchayat,
               Post Temasna, Tah : Kamptee,
               District : Nagpur.

        2]   Sarpanch Temasna Gram Panchayat,
               Post Temasna, Tah : Kamptee,
               District : Nagpur.                                                      .....PETITIONERS

                         ...V E R S U S...

        1]   Rupchand Pundlik Kadu,
              Aged-Not known, Occ: Not known,
              R/o-Temasna, Post : Temasna,
              Tah : Kamptee, District : Nagpur.

        2]   Block Development Officer, Kamptee,
               Tahsil : Kamptee, District : Nagpur.

        3]   Chief Executive Officer,
               Zilla Parishad, Nagpur.                                           ...... RESPONDENTS.
        =-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-
        Mr. Mahesh Mourya, Advocate for the Petitioners.
        Mrs. B. P. Maldhure, Advocate for Respondent Nos.2 and 3.
        =-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-

                                                           AND

                                WRIT PETITION NO. 3899 OF 2016

              Chief Executive Officer,
               Zilla Parishad, Nagpur.                                                  .....PETITIONER

                         ...V E R S U S...

        1]   Rupchand s/o Pundlik Kadu,         
              Aged : Major, Occ : Not known,




::: Uploaded on - 11/09/2017                                         ::: Downloaded on - 13/09/2017 01:12:42 :::
         wp6191.15 and wp3899.16.cJ.odt                                                                         2/7   


              R/o-Temasna, Post : Temasna,
              Tah : Kamptee, District : Nagpur.

        2]   Secretary, Temasna Gram Panchayat,
               Post : Temasna, Tahsil : Kamptee, 
               District : Nagpur.

        3]   Surpanch, Temasna Gram Panchayat,
               Post : Temasna, Tah-Kamptee,
               District : Nagpur.

        4]   Block Development Officer,
               Kamptee, Tah-Kamptee,
               District - Nagpur.                           ...... RESPONDENTS.
        =-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-
        Mr. Shaikh Majid, Advocate for the Petitioner.
        Mr. Mahesh I. Mourya, Advocate for Respondent Nos.2 and 3.
        =-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-


                         CORAM  :   S. C. GUPTE, J.

th DATE : 5 SEPTEMBER, 2017.

ORAL JUDGMENT :

Heard learned counsel for the parties.

02] The subject matter of challenge in these two petitions is

an order passed by the First Labour Court at Nagpur in an

application under Section 33(C)(2) of the Industrial Disputes Act,

being IDA No.59 of 2009.

        03]              Since 31st January, 1988, respondent No.1 was working





         wp6191.15 and wp3899.16.cJ.odt                                                                         3/7   

with Temasna Gram Panchayat. His services were terminated on

28th June, 2001. The order was challenged by respondent No.1 in a

complaint of unfair labour practice. The complaint came to be

dismissed by the First Labour Court, Nagpur, vide its order dated

5th February, 2011. Respondent No.1, thereafter, approached the

First Labour Court, Nagpur by the present application under

Section 33(C)(2) of the Industrial Disputes Act, 1947 for a claim of

Rs.1,42,260/- towards arrears of minimum wages and interest

thereon. Both the petitioners in the present petition contested the

application. By its impugned order dated 26th February, 2015, the

Court allowed the application by directing 50 per cent of arrears

towards minimum wages computed at Rs.25,650/- to be paid by

Gram Panchayat, Temasna and balance 50 per cent by Zilla

Parishad, Nagpur. Both Gram Panchayat and Zilla Parishad have

challenged this order.

04] Rule is issued in both petitions and the petitions are

taken up for hearing forthwith by consent of counsel.

05] The Labour Court in its impugned order held that the

minimum wage, as per notification dated 3rd July, 1990 of the

wp6191.15 and wp3899.16.cJ.odt 4/7

Government, and on the basis that respondent No.1, being an

unskilled employee, came within Zone-III, was fixed at the rate of

Rs.500/- per month. As against this minimum wage, respondent

No.1 was paid a sum of Rs.100/- per month between July 1990 and

December 1998 and thereafter, at the rate of Rs.150/-. Computing,

thus, the difference between the minimum wages payable and the

amount actually paid to respondent No.1, the Labour Court

calculated the total minimum wages payable to respondent No.1 at

Rs.51,300/-. In view of the Government Resolution dated 21 st

January, 2000, the Court directed 50 per cent wages to be paid by

the Gram Panchayat and balance 50 per cent to be paid by the Zilla

Parishad on behalf of the State Government.

06] This order is challenged by the Gram Panchayat on the

footing that respondent No.1, in a document produced by him in

the application under Section 33(C)(2) (Exh.37), claimed that he

was not paid minimum wages from 1 st January, 2000. Learned

counsel submits that, in that premises, minimum wages could not

have been ordered from July 1990. Secondly, it is submitted that

Exh.40, on the basis of which the minimum wages have been

ordered by the Labour Court, has been a document unilaterally

wp6191.15 and wp3899.16.cJ.odt 5/7

prepared by the advocate of respondent No.1. It is submitted that

this document could not have been made the basis for ordering

payment of minimum wages.

07] The quantum of minimum wages payable as per law

with effect from July 1990 itself is not the subject matter of

challenge. The challenge only pertains to the amount actually paid

by the Gram Panchayat to respondent No.1. If that was the

controversy, the easiest thing to do was for the Gram Panchayat to

produce its record in support of its case that minimum wages were

in fact paid to respondent No.1. The bald assertion that minimum

wages were paid to respondent No.1 apart, the Gram Panchayat

has not attempted to adduce any material before the Court in this

behalf. On the other hand, respondent No.1 has not only relied on

the circulars fixing minimum wages but also a statement of wages

paid during the relevant period to respondent No.1. There is,

accordingly, no merit in the challenge to the impugned order. It

cannot be said that in the facts of the case, the Court either acted

without jurisdiction or committed a serious illegality in exercising

the jurisdiction. There is, thus, no merit in Writ Petition No.6191

of 2015. The petition is dismissed.

         wp6191.15 and wp3899.16.cJ.odt                                                                         6/7   


        08]              As far as the companion petition, namely, Writ Petition

No.3899 of 2016, is concerned, it is pointed out by learned counsel

for the petitioner - Zilla Parishad that the relevant Government

Resolution, which provides for bearing of 50 per cent of minimum

wages for employees of gram panchayats by the State Government,

was issued on 21st January, 2000 and it applied with effect from 1 st

January, 2000; there was no other resolution requiring the State

Government to pay any part of minimum wages payable to

employees of gram panchayat from any interior date. Nothing

contrary could be pointed out by any party before this Court.

Accordingly, that part of the impugned order, which requires

minimum wages for the period upto 31st December, 1999 to be

borne by the Zilla Parishad, cannot be sustained. The liability to

pay minimum wages ordered by the Court till 31 st December, 1999

will have to be borne squarely by the Gram Panchayat, namely, the

petitioners in Writ Petition No.6191 of 2015.

09] Accordingly, Rule is partly made absolute in Writ

Petition No.3899 of 2016 by quashing and setting aside the

impugned order dated 26th February, 2015 insofar as it directs 50

per cent of minimum wages payable to respondent No.1 upto 31 st

wp6191.15 and wp3899.16.cJ.odt 7/7

December, 1999 to be borne by the petitioner Zilla Parishad. The

petition is disposed of accordingly.

10] During the pendency of these petitions, both Gram

Panchayat and Zilla Parishad have, respectively, deposited 50 per

cent amounts coming to their share in this Court towards the

compliance of the impugned order. Respondent No.1 is permitted

to withdraw the amount of Rs.25,650/- deposited by Gram

Panchayat, Temasna alongwith accrued interest, if any. As far as

the amount deposited by the Zilla Parishad is concerned,

respondent No.1 is permitted to withdraw a sum corresponding to

50 per cent of the differential minimum wages for the period

between 1st January, 2000 and 28th June, 2001, together with

accrued interest, if any, corresponding to such amount. The

balance amount can be withdrawn, alongwith corresponding

accrued interest, if any, by the Zilla Parishad. This amount will

have to be paid by Gram Panchayat, Temasna to respondent No.1.

Office to act accordingly.

JUDGE PBP