Bombay High Court
The Nagpur Zilla Jangal Kamgar ... vs Nathu S/O Tulsiram Diwate on 13 August, 2021
Bench: Avinash G. Gharote
(1) 11.wp1137.2020
IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY
NAGPUR BENCH : NAGPUR
WRIT PETITION NO. 1137 OF 2020
The Nagpur Zilla Jangal Kamgar Sahkari Federation Ltd. Nagpur
Vs.
Nathu s/o Tulsiram Diwate
---------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Office Notes, Office Memoranda of Coram, Court's or Judge's orders
appearances, Court's orders of directions
and Registrar's orders
---------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Shri Ranjeet Singh V. Gahilot, Advocate for petitioner.
Shri Karan Bhende, Advocate h/f Shri S. Dhande, Advocate for
respondent.
CORAM : AVINASH G. GHAROTE, J.
DATED : 13/08/2021
Mr. Gahilot learned counsel for the petitioner
submits that certain facts are not in dispute. The respondent
was appointed on 16.12.1972, was promoted as Supervisor
in 1998 and retired on 30.04.2003. It is an admitted position
as reflected from para 2 (page 12) of the complaint as filed
before the learned Labour Court, in which it has been
averred by the respondent himself that he had been
promoted as a Supervisor in the year 1998.
2. Learned counsel submits that since the
respondent was working as a Supervisor, he did not fall
within the definition of 'workman' as contained in
Section 2 (s) (iii) of the Industrial Dispute Act, 1947, and
(2) 11.wp1137.2020
therefore, it was not permissible to invoke the provision of
Section 33C (2) of the Industrial Disputes Act. The other
contention is that, since the salary of the respondent, at the
time of his retirement, was already more than Rs.5000/-, the
Government Resolution dated 27.09.2012 at Ex. 32 would
not be applicable and therefore, the impugned order ought
not to have been passed. For demonstrating the salary, the
salary slip has been placed on record. The salary slip of
February 2001 has been placed on record, which shows that
the respondent was receiving the salary of Rs. 5300/- per
month. It is however, necessary to note that this document
was not before the learned Labour Court, as the present
petitioner, though appeared and filed reply, failed to contest
the matter any further. It is thus evident that the impugned
judgment is sought to be over turned on the basis of
something which was never on record of the Labour Court
and therefore, was not considered.
3. Mr. Karan Bhende, learned Advocate on behalf of Mr.
Dhande, learned counsel for the respondent, has now
appeared and sought time to file reply.
(3) 11.wp1137.2020
4. List the matter on 27.08.2021, by which time the
reply be placed on record, failing which the matter shall be
decided on its own merits.
JUDGE
Sarkate
