Bombay High Court
Pyarelal S/O Lakhan Maskare vs Range Forest Officer, Goregaon ... on 15 February, 2021
Bench: V.M. Deshpande
1 wp2032.20.odt
IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY
NAGPUR BENCH AT NAGPUR
WRIT PETITION NO.2032 OF 2020
Pyarelal s/o Lakhan Maskare,
Aged about 63 years, Occu: Retired,
R/o Bhandanga, Post: Mundipar,
Tah. Goregaon, Distt. Gondia. ...PETITIONER
...V E R S U S...
1) Range Forest Officer,
Goregaon Forest Range Office,
Tahsil Goregaon, Distt. Gondia-441801.
2) Assistant Conservator of Forest,
Forest Office, Gondia,
Tah. and Dist. Gondia-441601.
3) Chief Conservator of Forest,
Forest Office, Civil Lines,
Nagpur-440001. ...RESPONDENTS
-------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Shri S.K. Verma, Advocate for petitioner.
Smt. M.A. Barabde, A.G.P. for respondents.
-------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
CORAM:- V. M. DESHPANDE, J.
DATED :- 15th FEBRUARY, 2021.
ORAL JUDGMENT
Rule. Rule is made returnable forthwith. Heard finally
by consent of the parties.
(2) Heard Shri S.K. Verma, learned counsel for the
petitioner and Smt. M.A. Barabde, learned Assistant Government
Pleader for respondents.
(3) The petitioner filed a Complaint (ULP) No.23 of 2017
before the Industrial Court, Bhandara. By filing complaint the
2 wp2032.20.odt
petitioner sought the relief from the Court that he is entitled for
the benefits of pension scheme.
(4) In the complaint it was stated that he was appointed as
a Forest Labour in the office of Range Forest Office at Goregaon
on 01.02.1990 and he has worked continuously for a period of 18
years. He stood retire on 31.12.2014 on attaining age of
superannuation, however he was not given the benefits of
pension. Therefore, the complaint was filed.
(5) Before approaching to the Court he sent a legal notice
(Exhibit-11) through an advocate, which was also placed on
record in the compliant proceedings before the Labour Court. The
said notice was replied by the respondent-Department vide reply
notice dated 16.01.2017 (Exhibit -13).
(6) After the parties adduced to the evidence the learned
Member of the Industrial Court vide judgment and order dated
18.10.2019 dismissed the complaint. Hence, this writ petition.
(7) During the course of hearing the learned counsel for
the petitioner submitted that learned Member of the Industrial
Court did not consider the legal notice (Exhibit-11) and the reply
thereon given by the respondent-Department (Exhibit-13), in
3 wp2032.20.odt
which it has been stated that the petitioner was working from
01.02.1990. He, therefore, submitted that the matter be remanded
back to the Industrial Court to give fresh consideration after
considering the Exhibits - 11 and 13.
(8) Smt. Barabde, learned Assistant Government Pleader
for respondents also could not point out the consideration of the
Exhibits-11 and 13.
(9) It was obligatory on the part of learned Member of
Industrial Court to consider the documents filed on record by the
parties. It is altogether different that the Court may accept or
reject the document, however there shall be consideration and the
Court shall give the reasons as to why the Court is accepting or
rejecting a particular document.
(10) In that view of the matter, the writ petition is partly
allowed. The impugned judgment and order passed by learned
Member, Industrial Court, Bhandara dated 18.10.2019 in
Complaint (ULP) No.23 of 2017 is hereby quashed and set aside.
The Complaint (ULP) No.23 of 2017 is restored to its file.
(11) Learned Member, Industrial Court, Bhandara is hereby
directed to give fresh hearing to the petitioner as well as
4 wp2032.20.odt
respondents and shall give verdict in accordance with law, after
considering the documents at Exhibits - 11 and 13.
(12) The parties are directed to appear before the learned
Member, Industrial Court, Bhandara on 17.03.2021. Thereafter,
the learned Member, Industrial Court, Bhandara shall decide the
said complaint in accordance with law, as early as possible and
within a period of eight months from 17.03.2021.
Rule is made absolute in above terms. No order as to costs.
JUDGE
Wagh
