Bombay High Court
Lalita W/O. Keshav Hatwar And ... vs State Of Maharashtra, ... on 17 January, 2018
Bench: Z.A. Haq
Judgment 1 wp4958.2015.odt
IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY
NAGPUR BENCH, NAGPUR
WRIT PETITION NO. 4958/2015
1] Lalita W/o Keshav Hatwar,
Aged about 57 years, Occ. Nil,
R/o Azad Nagar, Gittikhadan,
Katol Road, Opp. Ganesh Bhat's House,
Nagpur
2] Shewantabai Wd/o Fulchand Pardhi,
Aged about 57 years, Occ. Nil,
R/o Tulshidas Patle, Ramnagar Mandir,
Nagpur
3] Gitabai W/o Gulabrao Ninawe,
Aged about Major, Occ. Nil,
R/o I.B.M. Road, Bhimtekdi,
Gittikhadan, Nagpur ... PETITIONERS
...V E R S U S...
1] State of Maharashtra,
Horticulture Department,
Mantralaya, Mumbai- 400 032
through its Secretary
2] The Deputy Director of Horticulture,
C/o Seminar Building, Ramdaspeth,
Infront of Dagdi Park, Nagpur
3] The Superintending Horticulture Officer,
Laxmi Bhawan Chowk, Gokulpeth,
Nagpur
4] The Horticulture Officer,
Kadimbagh, Civil Lines,
Nagpur ... RESPONDENTS
::: Uploaded on - 25/01/2018 ::: Downloaded on - 26/01/2018 00:48:14 :::
Judgment 2 wp4958.2015.odt
===================================
Shri V.P. Marpakwar, Advocate for the petitioners
Shri A.M. Balpande, AGP for the respondent no. 1
===================================
CORAM:- Z.A. HAQ,J.
th
DATED :- 17 JANUARY, 2018
ORAL JUDGMENT :-
Heard.
Rule. Rule made returnable forthwith.
2] The petitioners approached the Labour Court with
complaint under Section 28 read with Section 30 of the
Maharashtra Recognition of Trade Unions and Prevention of
Unfair Labour Practices Act, 1971 contending that their services
were illegally terminated w.e.f 17/06/2002 and prayed for
directions to the employer to reinstate them with continuity of
service and pay back-wages. This complaint was allowed by the
impugned order. However, instead of granting reinstatement and
back-wages, the Labour Court had directed the employer to pay
compensation of Rs. 12,540/- to each of the employee
(complainant). The complainants have surpassed the age of
::: Uploaded on - 25/01/2018 ::: Downloaded on - 26/01/2018 00:48:14 :::
Judgment 3 wp4958.2015.odt
superannuation. Being dissatisfied with the relief granted by the
Industrial Court, the employees had filed revision application
before the Industrial Court, which is allowed by the impugned
order. The Industrial Court has enhanced the amount of
compensation to Rs. 50,000/-. Being dissatisfied with the relief
granted by the Industrial Court, the employees have filed this
petition and have prayed that the order passed by the Industrial
Court be modified and appropriate relief be granted directing the
employer to pay wages from the date of termination till the date
on which each employee attained the age of superannuation.
3] The learned AGP has supported the impugned order
pointing out that the relief is moulded by the Industrial Court
rightly relying on the judgment given in the case of Assistant
Engineer Rajasthan Development Corporation and another's Vs.
Gitam Singh reported in 2013 (5) Mah. L.J. at Page-01.
4] The undisputed facts on record show that the petitioner
no. 1 was appointed on 16/08/1982, petitioner no. 2 was
appointed on 24/09/1982 and petitioner no. 3 was appointed on
16/08/1982 and all the three employees were retrenched on
::: Uploaded on - 25/01/2018 ::: Downloaded on - 26/01/2018 00:48:14 :::
Judgment 4 wp4958.2015.odt
17/06/2002. Thus, all the three employees were in employment
for about 20 years. The Labour Court has recorded that the
complainants have proved that they had worked for more than
240 days in each calender year preceding their termination and
that the services of the complainants were illegally terminated
without complying with the mandate of Section 25F and Section
25G of the Industrial Disputes Act, 1947. The employers has
accepted the findings recorded by the subordinate Courts and has
not challenged it.
Considering the fact that the employees had been in
employment for about 20 years and that the services of the
employees were terminated without complying with the
mandatory requirements of Section 25F and Section 25G of the
Industrial Disputes Act, 1947 as held by the subordinate Courts, in
my view, each employee is entitled for Rs. 2,00,000/- towards
compensation.
Hence, the following order is passed:-
::: Uploaded on - 25/01/2018 ::: Downloaded on - 26/01/2018 00:48:14 :::
Judgment 5 wp4958.2015.odt
O R D E R
1] The respondents are directed to pay
Rs. 2,00,000/- (Rs. Two Lakhs) to each of the petitioner
towards compensation in lieu of reinstatement and
back-wages. It is clarified that this amount of
compensation is towards full and final settlement of the
claim of each of the employee.
The learned advocate for the petitioners has
submitted that the petitioners would be entitled for the
amount of gratuity. It is clarified that the entitlement of
the petitioner for the amount of gratuity is not
considered in these proceedings and it would be open
for the petitioners to claim it in appropriate
proceedings, if so advised.
2] The amount of compensation shall be paid
till 05/05/2018. If the amount of compensation is not
paid till 05/05/2018, the respondents will be liable to
pay interest at the rate of 9% per annum on the
Judgment 6 wp4958.2015.odt
amount of Rs. 2,00,000/- (Rs. Two Lakhs) to each of
the petitioner, the interest being chargeable from
01/10/2013 till the amount is paid to each of the
petitioner.
The writ petition is allowed in the above terms. In the
circumstances, the parties to bear their own costs.
JUDGE
Ansari
