Bombay High Court
State Of Mah vs Kisan Maruti Katde on 25 September, 2017
Bench: R.V. Ghuge
1 1 WP 6296-05 + .odt
IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY
BENCH AT AURANGABAD
WRIT PETITION NO. 6296 OF 2005
The State of Maharashtra.
Through Executive Engineer,
Ghatghar Pumped Hydroelectric Project,
Division No.1, Bhandardara,
Taluka Akole, District Ahmednagar.
....PETITIONER
-VERSUS-
Kisan Maruti Katde,
Age : Adult, Occupation : Nil,
R/o Guhire, Post Shendi,
Taluka Akole,
District Ahmednagar.
....RESPONDENT
WITH
WRIT PETITON NO.6297 OF 2005
The State of Maharashtra.
Through Executive Engineer,
Ghatghar Pumped Hydroelectric Project,
Division No.1, Bhandardara,
Taluka Akole, District Ahmednagar.
....PETITIONER
-VERSUS-
Daulat Dashrath Pawar,
Age : Adult, Occupation : Nil,
R/o Guhire, Post Shendi,
Taluka Akole,
District Ahmednagar.
....RESPONDENT
WITH
WRIT PETITION NO. 6298 OF 2005
The State of Maharashtra.
Through Executive Engineer,
::: Uploaded on - 27/09/2017 ::: Downloaded on - 28/09/2017 01:34:32 :::
2 1 WP 6296-05 + .odt
Ghatghar Pumped Hydroelectric Project,
Division No.1, Bhandardara,
Taluka Akole, District Ahmednagar.
....PETITIONER
-VERSUS-
Shravan Santu Tatle,
Age : Adult, Occupation : Nil,
R/o Guhire, Post Shendi,
Taluka Akole,
District Ahmednagar.
....RESPONDENT
WITH
WRIT PETITION NO. 6299 OF 2005
The State of Maharashtra.
Through Executive Engineer,
Ghatghar Pumped Hydroelectric Project,
Division No.1, Bhandardara,
Taluka Akole, District Ahmednagar.
....PETITIONER
-VERSUS-
Shravan Budha Sonawane,
Age : Adult, Occupation : Nil,
R/o Guhire, Post Shendi,
Taluka Akole,
District Ahmednagar.
....RESPONDENT
...
AGP for the Petitioners/ State : Shri N.T. Bhagat.
Advocate for the Respondents : Shri S.T. Shelke.
...
CORAM : RAVINDRA V. GHUGE, J.
DATE : 25.09.2017
ORAL JUDGMENT:
1. In all these matters, the petitioner /State is aggrieved by the
3 1 WP 6296-05 + .odt
judgment and award dated 12.04.2005 delivered by the Second Labour
Court, Ahmednagar, thereby allowing References (I.D.A.) Nos.3, 4, 5 & 6
of 2002 filed by the respective respondents /workmen and they are
granted reinstatement in service on the same terms and conditions with
continuity of service from 21.10.2000, without back-wages.
2. By order dated 01.09.2005, this court has granted interim
relief in terms of prayer clause-C, thereby staying the judgment and
award of the Labour Court. Consequently, all these respondents/
workmen are out of employment. There is no dispute that the
applications for benefits under Section 17-B of the Industrial Disputes
Act, 1947 have not been filed in these matters.
3. The learned AGP has strenuously criticized the impugned
awards and my attention is drawn to the 15 grounds formulated by the
petitioner in the memo of the petitions.
4. It is vehemently contended that all these respondents were
on daily wages. None of them have completed 240 days in continuous
service. As such, there is no requirement for the compliance of Section
25-F of the Industrial Disputes Act, 1947. Since they were daily wagers,
there is no question of any seniority or application of the principle of
"Last Come - First Go". It is also contended that Section 2(oo)(bb) of
the Industrial Disputes Act,1947 would be applicable as it was a contract
for service between the parties and there was no renewal of contract.
5. The learned Advocate for the respondents /workmen has
4 1 WP 6296-05 + .odt
strenuously defended the impugned awards. He submits that the Labour
Court has concluded that these workers have worked continuously from
01.01.1983 and have, therefore, worked for three years continuously.
When such a finding on facts is arrived at, this Court should be slow in
interfering with such conclusions in it's supervisory jurisdiction.
6. It is further contended that the Labour Court has granted
reinstatement to these respondents on the same terms and conditions on
which they were earlier appointed. No interference is called for when
the Labour Court has not granted the Respondents beyond what is
permissible in law while entertaining their case.
7. I have considered the submissions of the learned Advocates
and have gone through the impugned award and the record available.
8. It is apparent that the petitioners have not come forth with
the case that the respondents were working on Employment Guarantee
Scheme. This ground is not raised in these proceedings.
9. I find from the answer to Issue No.1 that the Labour Court
has concluded that the record reveals the continuous service from
01.01.1983. The alleged termination is dated 20.01.1986. The Labour
Court has framed Issue No.4 as to whether, the workman has proved
completion of 240 days in the calender year preceding the date of
reference, which is the date of termination. The Labour Court has
assigned reasons, while holding in the negative, that the documents on
record indicate that the respondents have not completed 240 days in
5 1 WP 6296-05 + .odt
continuous service in the year preceding the date of termination. On
this count, Section 25-F would not be attracted keeping in view the
effect of Section 25-B of the Industrial Disputes Act, 1947.
10. There is no dispute that after the termination of all these
respondents, they are not in employment for the last 31 years. If the
conclusions of the Labour Court are to be accepted to the extent of its
answer to Issue No.4, it would be established that these respondents
were working for two years continuously and in the third year preceding
the date of termination, they have not completed 240 days. As such, the
termination cannot be said to be unlawful.
11. Nevertheless, in matters of similar nature, in the cases of
(a) Assistant Engineer, Rajasthan State Agriculture Marketing
Board, Sub-Division, Kota Vs. Mohanlal, [2013 LLR 1009];
(b) Assistant Engineer, Rajasthan Development Corporation and
another Vs. Gitam Singh, [(2013) 5 SCC 136];
(c) BSNL Vs. Man Singh, [(2012) 1 SCC 558]; and
(d) Jagbir Singh Vs. Haryana State Agriculture Marketing Board,
[(2009) 15 SCC 327],
the Honourable Supreme Court has concluded that after an
employee has worked for a short duration and is out of employment for
a long duration of 15, 20 or 30 years, an order of reinstatement would
be impracticable. A pragmatic view has to be taken. The Honourable
Supreme Court has, therefore, granted compensation in between
6 1 WP 6296-05 + .odt
Rs.30,000/- to 40,000/- per year of service put in by the concerned
worker.
12. Keeping in view, that the respondents/workmen in these
cases have worked for two years from 1983 to 1985, ends of justice
would be met by awarding compensation of Rs.80,000/- to each of the
workmen.
13. These Writ Petitions are, therefore, partly allowed. The
impugned awards are modified by setting aside the order of
reinstatement and continuity in service and instead, the respondents/
workmen would be entitled to a lump-sum compensation of Rs.80,000/-
(Rupees Eighty Thousand) each for having worked about two years in
service.
14. The petitioner/ State shall, therefore, pay the said
compensation to the respondents within a period of TEN WEEKS from
today, failing which the Executive Engineer, Ghatghar Pumped
Hydroelectric Project, Division No.1, Bhandardara, Taluka Akole, District
Ahmednagar, shall be liable to pay interest @ 6% p.a. from the date of
the award, on the amount of Rs.80,000/-, from his own salary and the
said component of interest shall not be paid from the State exchequer.
15. Rule is made partly absolute accordingly.
vsm (RAVINDRA V. GHUGE, J.)
JUDGE
