Bombay High Court
Machindra Chandrabhan Dange vs M/S Siddhi Cnc Pvt Ltd Through Its ... on 6 December, 2021
Bench: Mangesh S. Patil
1 CA/15149/2019+
IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY
BENCH AT AURANGABAD
2 CIVIL APPLICATION NO. 15149 OF 2019
IN WP/6324/2018
MACHINDRA CHANDRABHAN DANGE
VERSUS
M/S SIDDHI CNC PVT LTD THROUGH ITS DIRECTOR
WITH
CIVIL APPLICATION NO. 12820 OF 2021 IN WP/6324/2018
M/S SINDHI CNC PVT. LTD. THROUGH ITS DIRECTOR
VERSUS
MACHINDRA CHANDRABHAN DANGE
WITH
WP/6324/2018 WITH WP/8520/2018
...
Mr. Parag V. Barde, Advocate for applicant (CA/15149/2019) and for
respondent in CA/12820/2021
Mr. V.N. Upadhye, Advocate for respondent (CA/15149/2019) and for
applicant in CA/12820/2021
...
CORAM : MANGESH S. PATIL, J.
DATE : 6TH DECEMBER 2021
PC :
1. Civil Application no. 15149 of 2019 is filed seeking
withdrawal of the amount of backwages for the period February, 2018 to
September, 2019, deposited by the employer pursuant to the order
dated 03-10-2019, whereby it was directed in paragraph no. 8 thereof,
as under :-
"8. The management shall deposit the wages of the
employee/workman on the basis of the wage package,
which he would have earned on account of the
continuity of service as in January, 2018, for the period
February, 2018 till September, 2019, in this Court on or
before 15.11.2019. It shall continue to deposit such
2 CA/15149/2019+
wages from October, 2019 on month to month basis on
or before the 15th day of the succeeding month in this
Court. On these conditions, the impugned judgment
shall stand stayed to the extent of the reinstatement in
service. If these directions are not complied with, there
shall be no interim relief effective from 16.11.2019."
2. Though, it is a matter of record that there has been a
subsequent variation in this order, whereby if the employer was not
ready to deposit the money, it was directed to reinstate the employee, as
can be seen from the order dated 10-01-2020. Such supervening
circumstances have no bearing as far as the present request is
concerned.
3. Simultaneously, in view of the supervening events, Civil
Application no. 12620 of 2021 has been moved by the employer,
seeking modification of the original order dated 03-10-2019, to the
extent it directed it to continue to deposit from month to month the
wages from October, 2019. According to the employer, pursuant to the
order dated 10-01-2020, the employer has also reinstated the
employee. This fact is fairly admitted by the learned Advocate for the
employee Mr. Barde.
4. The Labour Court by order dated 02-08-2017 had set aside
the termination and directed the reinstatement of the employee with
continuity of service and 50% of the backwages. Both the parties then
went in revision and the Industrial Court, though confirmed the order to
3 CA/15149/2019+
the extent of setting aside the termination and reinstatement with
continuity, but had not granted backwages. To that extent, even the
employee has challenged the order in revision, by a separate writ
petition.
5. Admittedly, the order passed by the Labour Court was not
stayed by the Industrial Court during the pendency of the revisions,
albeit, it is stated at the bar by the learned Advocate for the employer,
that there was an oral understanding not to enforce the reinstatement.
6. Be that as it may, the employee is now seeking to withdraw
the amount, which was directed to be deposited as a condition
precedent for grant of stay to the execution and the order of
reinstatement.
7. In view such state-of-affairs, Civil Application no. 15149 of
2019 is allowed in terms of prayer clause (B), subject to employee
furnishing usual undertaking to the satisfaction of the Registrar (Judicial)
of this Court.
8. Civil Application no. 12820 of 2021 is also allowed in terms
of prayer clause (B).
9. Both the Applications are disposed of.
[ MANGESH S. PATIL, J. ]
arp/
