Bombay High Court
Haribhau Balajirao Ambhore vs Depot Manager, ... on 24 January, 2018
Bench: S.P. Deshmukh
1 WP-10258-12.doc
IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT B0MBAY
BENCH AT AURANGABAD
WRIT PETITION NO. 10258 OF 2012
Haribhau s/o Balaji Ambhore,
age: 62 years, Occu. Nil,
R/o Dongaon Tq. Jafrabad,
Dist. Jalna. .. Petitioner
versus
1. Depot Manager,
M.S.R.T.C. Jafrabad,
Tq. Jafrabad, Dist. Jalna.
2. The Divisional Controller,
M.S R. T. C. Jalna,
Dist. Jalna .. Respondents
---
Mr. P. S. Paranjape, Advocate for petitioner
Mr. D. S. Bagul, Advocate for respondents
CORAM : SUNIL P. DESHMUKH
AND P. R. BORA, JJ
DATE : 24th January, 2018
ORAL JUDGMENT (PER : SUNIL P. DESHMUKH, J.)
1. Briefly stated, grievance of the petitioner is, the order
passed by labour court, Jalna in complaint (ULP) No. 82 of
2008 on 30-03-2010 has not been followed and complied
with in its letter and spirit.
2 WP-10258-12.doc
2. The order reads, thus;
'' 1. The complaint is partly allowed.
2. It is declared that the respondents have engaged in unfair
labour practices by dismissing the complainant from service
04-08-1997. They are, therefore, directed to cease and desist from
such engagement.
3. The respondents are directed to reinstate the complainant in
service with continuity w.e.f. 04-08-1997 till the date of his
superannuation, but without back wages.
4. The order shall be complied within 2 months from today. ''
3. Learned counsel are ad-idem that respondents had been
before the industrial court against aforesaid order of the
labour court, however, challenge had failed.
4. Mr Paranjape submits yet, the Divisional Controller of
respondents at Jalna issued order on 25-01-2011 whereunder
he purports to decline benefits accruing to petitioner with the
declaration of engagement by respondents in unfair labour
practice and specifically granting continuity in his service with
effect from 04-08-1997 till the date of his superannuation.
3 WP-10258-12.doc
5. Learned counsel further submits that labour court's
order is specific, unambiguous and requiring solemn and strict
compliance yet under impugned order dated 25-07-2011 with
erroneous assumption based on circular dated
02-06-2009, the benefits accrued to petitioner under the
orders of labour court have been declined, observing thus :
'' तयांचा िदनांक ०७.०८.१९९७ ते ३०.०४.२००८ पयरतचा
एकूण ३९२० िदवसाचा कालावधी असाधारण िबनपगारी रजा
समजणयात येत आहे. शी हिरभाऊ बालाजी अंभोरे हे सेवािनवृत
कमर चाऱयास िमळणाऱया सावलीतस ते पात आहेत. शी हिरभाऊ
बालाजी अंभोरे हे िदनांक ०७.०८.१९९७ ते ३०.०४.२००८ पयरत
पतयक कतर वयावर नसलयामुळे संदभर कं. मधील तरतुदीनुसार िद.
०७.०८.१९९७ ते ३०.०४.२००८ पयरतचया उपदानास व वेतन
िनिशचतीस ते पात नाहीत. ''
6. He submits, pursuant to the order passed by labour
court, petitioner had been entitled to notional incremental
increases in the salary and benefits accordingly ought to have
been paid to him. However, instead, erroneously relying on
the circular referred to above, the petitioner had been
declined fixation of pay and gratuity for the period from
07-08-1997 to 30-04-2008.
7. Learned counsel referring to circular dated
02-06-2009 annexed to petition, submits that the same would
4 WP-10258-12.doc
not be applicable in petitioner's case in the face of specific
order passed by the labour court.
8. Learned counsel appearing on behalf of respondent Mr.
D. S. Bagul submits that circular dated 02-06-2009 has been
issued with reference to the supreme court decision and thus
the same has considered while following the order passed by
the labour court. He further submits that the order of
industrial court had been passed in 2010 whereas petition has
been preferred in 2012. In the circumstances, he submits,
the court may not exercise its discretion in favour of
petitioner.
9. Although aforesaid submissions are advanced on behalf
of respondents, the order passed by Divisional Controller,
of respondents Jalna on 25-07-2011 based on circular dated
02-06-2009 appears to be untenable on two grounds.
Basically, the circular dated 02-06-2009 which is relied on
while passing order dated 25-07-2011 is a subsequently
issued circular after the date of superannuation of the
petitioner and secondly, the supreme court judgment relied on
by respondents with reference to which said circular is
claimed to have been issued has been delivered in an entirely
5 WP-10258-12.doc
different context and different set of facts wherein, it appears,
the employee concerned had been held guilty of unauthorized
absence from his official duty.
10. In present matter, parties concur on that factual
scenario is different. Petitioner had been charged of
consumption of alcoholic drink and a sum of Rs.100/- had
been found on his person. The labour court had, on evidence,
found that the charges could not be sustained and had passed
order dated 30-03-2010 referred to above and challenge to
the findings of labour court had failed before the Industrial
court. As such, the order of labour court had become final and
thus ought to have been followed scrupulously. It can hardly
be said that petitioner can be imputed unauthorized absence
and much less held liable for the same.
11. Having regard to aforesaid, it may have to be referred
to that a judgment of a higher court would have application in
the context in which it has been rendered but, would not be
applicable like Euclid's formula.
12. In the circumstances, impugned order dated
25-07-2011 passed by Divisional Controller, Maharashtra
6 WP-10258-12.doc
State Road Transport Corporation, Jalna, Division, Jalna, to
the extent it declines fixation of salary and payment of
gratuity according to order of labour court is set aside. The
parties to workout pay fixation and the gratuity amount and
respondents shall pay the same to petitioner as early as
possible and preferably within a period of six months from the
date of receipt of writ of this order.
13. Rule made absolute in aforesaid terms.
P. R. BORA SUNIL P. DESHMUKH
JUDGE JUDGE
pnd/-
