Bombay High Court
The State Of Maharashtra Through ... vs Sarchitnis Marathwada Lalbawta ... on 10 February, 2021
Bench: R. G. Avachat
WPs.1879 and 1936.odt
IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY
BENCH AT AURANGABAD
WRIT PETITION NO.1879 OF 2019
AND
WRIT PETITION NO.1936 OF 2019
The State of Maharashtra,
Through the Superintendent Engineer,
PWD, Osmanabad, Dist. Osmanabad
and ors. ..Petitioners
Vs.
Sarchitnis,
Marathwada Lalbawta Kamgar Union,
TradeUnion Centre, Vidyanagar,
Jalkot Road, Ugdir,
Dist.Latur ..Respondents
----
Mr.S.N.Morampalle, AGP for petitioners
Mr.A.V.Indrale-Patil, Advocate for respondent
----
CORAM : R.G. AVACHAT, J.
DATE : FEBRUARY 10, 2021
ORDER :-
These Writ Petitions are being decided by this
common order since common questions of facts and law arise
therein.
2 WPs.1879 and 1936
2. Original respondent no.1 in both the Writ Petitions
filed complaints against the petitioners herein, being
Complaint/ULP Nos.147 of 2013 and 143 of 2013, before the
Industrial Court at Latur. Original respondent no.1 is a trade
union. The contentions in the complaints before the Industrial
Court were as follows -
The petitioners (respondents in the complaints)
indulged in unfair labour practice. The workmen/employees
named in the Annexure to the complaints, were working on
daily wages. Petitioner nos.3 and 4 extracted work from them
on holidays namely, second and fourth Saturdays and even on
public holidays. The details thereof were given in the annexure
to the complaints. It is also the case of the original respondent
that as per the Kalekar Committee report (Award), the workers
who have worked on holidays, have to be paid twice the
amount of daily wages. The respondent - Union had, therefore,
requested the petitioners to pay the workers their dues towards
the work they have done on the holidays.
3 WPs.1879 and 1936
3. The Industrial Court, on appreciating the evidence in
both the matters, partly allowed the complaints, holing that the
respondents to have engaged in unfair labour practices and
further directed to cease and desist in future from such unfair
labour practice. The respondents have been directed to pay
the monetary benefits, as claimed, within a period of one
month from the date of the order.
4. The original respondents in the complaint have,
therefore, preferred these Writ Petitions.
5. Learned AGP appearing for the petitioners in both
the Writ Petitions, would submit that the complaints were filed
by the respondent - Union on behalf of its so called members.
The burden of proof was on the respondent/Union. Instead of
calling upon the respondent/Union to discharge the burden,
Industrial Court found the petitioner nos.3 and 4 to have failed
to prove that the workers did not work on holidays. The
Industrial Court did not allow the petitioner to lead further
evidence. The complaints were abruptly kept for final
4 WPs.1879 and 1936
arguments in the matter. He, therefore, urged for setting aside
the impugned judgment and order.
6. Mr.A.V.Indrale-Patil, learned counsel for the
respondent, in both the petitions would, on the other hand,
submit that the issue is no longer res integra. Similarly placed
employees have been already granted relief. On the ground of
parity, the workers are entitled for their dues. Learned counsel
has placed reliance on following decisions:-
(i) The Superintending Engineer, Sarvajanik
Bandhkam Mandal, Osamanabad and anr. Vs.
General Secretary, Marathwada Lal Bavta Kamgar
Union, Trade Union Centre, Jalkot Road, Dist.
Latur (Writ Petition No.2955 of 2009 decided on
02.08.2010);
(ii) Writ Petition Nos.6674 of 2007 and Writ
Petition No.6675 of 2007 decided on 30.04.2013.
7. I have considered the submissions made by learned
counsel for the respective parties.
8. The Industrial Court, on appreciating the evidence in
the matter, has partly allowed the complaints. It is not in
5 WPs.1879 and 1936
dispute that as per the recommendations of Kalekar
Committee, the workers who worked on holidays, are entitled
to receive wages twice the amount of daily wage. The question
was, whether the employees/members or original
respondent/Union had worked on holidays, as was averred in
the complaints. It is true that the claim for such wages dates
for the period from 1980-81 to the date of retirement of
respective employees/workers. The State of Maharashtra
accepted the recommendations of Kalekar Committee and
issued Government Resolution dated 31.08.1988 and
communication dated 28.11.2003.
9. The Industrial Court has observed in its judgment
that inspite of the direction, the original attendance registers,
pay registers, etc., were not produced on record. Those
registers were admittedly in the custody of the respondents.
The Assistant Engineer examined on behalf of the respondents/
petitioners, admitted in cross-examination that the attendance
registers of various workers were maintained. He had verified
original record. The witness had shown his readiness to file
6 WPs.1879 and 1936
original registers on record. He admitted that the workmen
had made representations asking for wages for the work done
on holidays. Inspite of undertaking to produce the original
attendance registers, the respondents did not produce the
same. Adverse inference was therefore drawn. The Industrial
Court found that the similarly situated workmen have been
granted such benefits. It is further found that that the
workmen had made representations in 2011 onward. The
claim cannot be defeated on the ground of limitation as it was
for compliance of terms of the Award, service conditions, rules.
The same respondents in other circles and Divisions have
extended same benefits to other workmen.
10. The aforesaid observations of the Industrial Court
have not been disputed before this Court. The judgment and
order dated 02.08.2010 passed in Writ Petition No.2955 of
2009 indicate that the similarly placed workmen have been
granted similar relief. Moreover, vide order dated 30.04.2013
passed by this Court in Writ Petition Nos.6674 of 2007 and
6675 of 2007, similar reliefs have been granted. The workmen
7 WPs.1879 and 1936
in this case, therefore, could not be denied the relief prayed for.
The Industrial Court, on facts and on the ground of parity as
well, allowed the complaints. No interference is called for with
the impugned orders.
11. The Writ Petitions, therefore, fail and stand
dismissed.
[R.G. AVACHAT, J.]
KBP
