Bombay High Court
The Chief Engineer,Irrigation ... vs The Member,Industrial Court & 8 ... on 25 January, 2018
Bench: Z.A. Haq
Judgment 1 wp1203.2003,wp1224.2003, wp1225.2003.odt
IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY
NAGPUR BENCH, NAGPUR
WRIT PETITION NO. 1203/2003
PETITIONERS : 1] Chief Engineer, Irrigation
Department, Amaravati
2] The Superintending Engineer,
Yeotmal Irrigation Circle,
Yeotmal
...V E R S U S...
RESPONDENTS : 1] The Member, Industrial Court,
Yeotmal
2] Secretary, Rural Development
Department, Mantralaya,
Mumbai- 400 032
3] The Secretary, Department of
Irrigation, Mantralaya,
Mumbai 400 032
4] The Secretary, Revenue and
Forest Department, Mantralaya,
Mumbai 400 032
5] The Chief Executive Officer,
Zilla Parishad, Yeotmal
6] The Executive Engineer,
Zilla Parishad, Irrigation
Division, Yeotmal
7] The Sub-Divisional Officer,
Zilla Parishad, Irrigation
Sub-Division, Darwah
::: Uploaded on - 07/02/2018 ::: Downloaded on - 07/02/2018 23:40:34 :::
Judgment 2 wp1203.2003,wp1224.2003, wp1225.2003.odt
8] The Executive Engineer,
Irrigation Division,
Yeotmal
9] Rama S/o Bhojaji Paikrao,
Aged about 45 years,
R/o Fetri, Tah. Pusad,
Dist. Yeotmal
with
WRIT PETITION NO. 1224/2003
PETITIONERS : 1] Chief Engineer, Irrigation
Department, Amaravati
2] The Superintending Engineer,
Yavatmal Irrigation Circle,
Yavatmal
...V E R S U S...
RESPONDENTS : 1] The Member, Industrial Court,
Yeotmal
2] Secretary, Rural Development
Department, Mantralaya,
Mumbai- 400 032
3] The Secretary, Department of
Irrigation, Mantralaya,
Mumbai 400 032
4] The Secretary, Revenue and
Forest Department, Mantralaya,
Mumbai 400 032
5] The Chief Executive Officer,
::: Uploaded on - 07/02/2018 ::: Downloaded on - 07/02/2018 23:40:34 :::
Judgment 3 wp1203.2003,wp1224.2003, wp1225.2003.odt
Zilla Parishad, Yeotmal
6] The Executive Engineer,
Zilla Parishad, Irrigation
Division, Yeotmal
7] The Sub-Divisional Officer,
Zilla Parishad, Irrigation
Sub-Division, Derwah
8] The Executive Engineer,
Irrigation Division,
Yeotmal
9] Narayan Laxman Dhulchule,
R/o Devthana, Taq. Pusad,
District Yavatmal
with
WRIT PETITION NO. 1225/2003
PETITIONERS : 1] Chief Engineer, Irrigation
Department, Amaravati
2] The Superintending Engineer,
Yeotmal Irrigation Circle,
Yeotmal
...V E R S U S...
RESPONDENTS : 1] The Member, Industrial Court,
Yeotmal
2] Secretary, Rural Development
Department, Mantralaya,
Mumbai- 400 032
3] The Secretary, Department of
Irrigation, Mantralaya,
::: Uploaded on - 07/02/2018 ::: Downloaded on - 07/02/2018 23:40:34 :::
Judgment 4 wp1203.2003,wp1224.2003, wp1225.2003.odt
Mumbai 400 032
4] The Secretary, Revenue and
Forest Department, Mantralaya,
Mumbai 400 032
5] The Chief Executive Officer,
Zilla Parishad, Yeotmal
6] The Executive Engineer,
Zilla Parishad, Irrigation
Division, Yeotmal
7] The Sub-Divisional Officer,
Zilla Parishad, Irrigation
Sub-Division, Darwah
8] The Executive Engineer,
Irrigation Division,
Yeotmal
9] Raju Bapurao Dahake,
Aged about 43 years,
R/o Srirampur (Pusad),
Tah. Pusad,
Dist. Yeotmal
===================================
Ms. U.A. Patil, Advocate for the petitioners
Ms. M. Naik, AGP for the respondent nos. 1 to 4
Ms. M. Shesh, Advocate for the respondent no. 9
===================================
CORAM:- Z.A. HAQ,J.
th
DATED :- 25 JANUARY, 2018
ORAL JUDGMENT :-
These three writ petitions can be disposed by the
common judgment as these petitions arise out of the common
Judgment 5 wp1203.2003,wp1224.2003, wp1225.2003.odt
order passed by the Subordinate Courts.
Heard.
2] The respondent-employee in each petition has
approached the Labour Court by filing the complaint under
Section 80 read with Item 2 of Schedule-IV of the Maharashtra
Recognition of Trade Unions and Prevention of Unfair Labour
Practices Act, 1971. The respondents-employees claimed that they
were working under the control of the Zilla Parishad,
Rehabilitation Sub-Division, Pusad since 1982 as daily wagers,
that the rehabilitation work of the Zilla Parishad was transferred
to the Project Officer, Irrigation Division, Yeotmal and the sub-
division was closed on 31/01/1991 and then the services of the
employees were transferred to the Zilla Parishad, Irrigation Sub-
Division, Pusad and Darwah from 01/04/1991 where they worked
till their services were illegally terminated on 31/03/1993. The
employees contended that their services were terminated without
complying with the requirements of Section 25-I of the Industrial
Disputes Act, 1947 and they were not paid retrenchment
compensation at the time of termination.
Judgment 6 wp1203.2003,wp1224.2003, wp1225.2003.odt
The claim of the employees was opposed by the
employer.
3] After conducting the trial, the Labour Court recorded
that the employees had succeeded in proving that the present
petitioners are the successor of the present respondent no. 5 (The
Chief Executive Officer, Zilla Parishad, Yeotmal), present
respondent no. 6 (The Executive Engineer, Zilla Parishad,
Irrigation Division, Yeotmal), and the Project Officer and the
Executive Engineer, Pathabandhare, Division Yeotmal. The Labour
Court held that the employees proved that their services were
illegally terminated and they were entitled for reinstatement with
continuity of service and backwages. The complaints filed by the
employees were allowed by the order dated. 27/06/1997.
This order was challenged by the employer in revision
applications before the Industrial Court. The revision applications
were dismissed by the order dated 14/12/2001. Being aggrieved
by the above orders, the petitioners have filed these writ petitions.
4] The impugned orders are challenged by the petitioners
on the ground that the Subordinate Courts have committed an
Judgment 7 wp1203.2003,wp1224.2003, wp1225.2003.odt
error in holding that there is relationship between the employer
and the employees by wrongly recording that the present
petitioners are the successor in interest of the present respondent
no. 5 (The Chief Executive Officer, Zilla Parishad, Yeotmal),
present respondent no. 6 (The Executive Engineer, Zilla Parishad,
Irrigation Division, Yeotmal), and the Project Officer and the
Executive Engineer, Pathbandhare, Division Yeotmal. It is
submitted that the employees were working under the
Rehabilitation Sub-Division of the Zilla Parishad and that sub-
division was closed on 31/01/1991 and the services of the
employees were transferred to the Zilla Parishad, Irrigation, Sub-
Division, Pusad and Darwah however, the employees were
engaged as per the availability of work.
5] Though nothing was placed on record of the Labour
Court or the Industrial Court by the employees to show that the
other similarly situated employees were absorbed and their
services were regularised, Civil Application No. 1800/2006 was
filed in Writ Petition No. 1225/2003 praying for grant of early
hearing and in this civil application, it was stated that 14 other
employees who were working on daily wages alongwith the
Judgment 8 wp1203.2003,wp1224.2003, wp1225.2003.odt
petitioners were absorbed in 1996 and only these employees
(respondents in these writ petitions) were left out. Alongwith the
civil application, the respondents-employees have placed on record
the copy of the Government Resolution dated 09/06/2005 which
shows that ten employees who were working on daily wages were
brought on CRTE. Considering the facts of the case and that the
Subordinate Courts have concurrently upheld the claim of the
respondents-employees for reinstatement and as the petitioners-
employer have not been able to point out any illegality or
perversity of such nature in the findings of fact recorded by the
Subordinate Courts which necessitates interference by this Court
in the extra-ordinary jurisdiction, I am not inclined to interfere
with the conclusions of the Subordinate Courts that the services of
the respondents-employees were terminated illegally.
6] However, question which arises for consideration at
this stage is about the relief for which the respondents-employees
are entitled. The services of the respondents-employees were
terminated on 31/03/1993. The proceedings are going on since
last more than 23 years. In the process, two employees
(respondents in Writ Petition No. 1203/2003 and Writ Petition
Judgment 9 wp1203.2003,wp1224.2003, wp1225.2003.odt
No. 1224/2003) have surpassed the age of superannuation and
the employee (respondent in Writ Petition No. 1225/2003) is on
the verge of attaining the age of superannuation.
7] Considering the above facts and the claim of the
respondents-employees that out of 17 employees who were
working on daily wages, the other 14 employees are taken on
CRTE and only the respondents in these writ petitions are left out,
in my view, the following order would sub-serve the ends of
justice:-
O R D E R
1] The petitioners are directed to pay
Rs. 2,00,000/- (Rs. Two Lakhs) to the respondent
no. 9 in each petition towards compensation in lieu
of reinstatement and backwages as ordered by the
Subordinate Courts.
This amount of compensation of
Rs. 2,00,000/- will be towards full and final
settlement of claim of the above referred
respondents-employees.
Judgment 10 wp1203.2003,wp1224.2003, wp1225.2003.odt
2] The petitioners shall deposit the amount
before the Labour Court, Yeotmal till 15/05/2018.
If the amount is not deposited till 15/05/2018, the
petitioners will be liable to pay interest at the rate of 9% per
annum on the amount payable by them, the interest being
chargeable from 01/07/1997 i.e. immediately after the date on
which the order was passed by the Labour Court, till the amount is
deposited by them.
On deposit of the amount, it be given to the respondent
no. 9 in each petition.
The impugned orders stand modified in the above
terms.
The writ petitions are disposed accordingly. In the
circumstances, the parties to bear their own costs.
JUDGE
Ansari
