Azaad Kaamgar Sangathan vs Panvel Municipal Corporation And ...
2021 Latest Caselaw 3946 Bom

                                     1/6            912 Civ WP(st)-95646.20 (25-02-21) J.odt




      IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY
                     CIVIL APPELLATE JURISDICTION
               WRIT PETITION (ST.) NO.95646 OF 2020

Azaad Kaamgar Sangathana,                   ]
A registered Labour Union under Trade       ]
Union Act, 1926, Through its President,     ]
having its Office at Shop No.5,             ]
Harmoni CHS, Plot No.6, Sector 1,           ]
Khanda Colony, Navi Mumbai - 401            ]
206.                                        ]   ...                     Petitioner

                          Versus

1.     Panvel Municipal Corporation,        ]
       Swami Nityanand Rd. Opp.             ]
       Gokhale Marriage Hall, Tal.          ]
       Panvel, Dist. Raigad, Pin - 400      ]
       614.                                 ]
2.     The Labour Commissioner,             ]
       Kamgar Bhavan, 4th Floor, C-20, E-   ]
       Block, BKC, Bandra East, Mumbai      ]
       - 400 051.                           ]
3.     M/s. Sai Ganesh Enterprises,         ]
       S-10, Jivdan Niwas, Chandresh        ]
       Lodha Marg, Gala Nagar, Achole       ]
       Road, Nalasopara (E), Palghar -      ]
       410 209.                             ]
4.     The State of Maharashtra,            ]
       Through the Principal Secretary,     ]
       Urban Development, Government        ]
       of Mahrashtra, 6th Floor, Main       ]
       Building, Mantralaya, Madam          ]
       Cama Road, Mumbai - 400 032.         ]   ...               Respondents


AJN




      ::: Uploaded on - 04/03/2021              ::: Downloaded on - 04/03/2021 22:00:22 :::
                                        2/6         912 Civ WP(st)-95646.20 (25-02-21) J.odt




                                ...
Mr. Vijay Kurle i/b Ms. Kruti Bhavsar for the petitioner.

Mr. A.S. Rao for respondent No.1.

Mr. S.C. Naidu with Mr. Manoj M. Gujar i/b C.R. Naidu & Co. for
respondent No.3.

Mr. S.S. Panchpor, AGP for respondent Nos.2 and 4.
                                ...

                                     CORAM   : S.S. SHINDE &
                                               MANISH PITALE, JJ.

RESERVED ON : 25TH FEBRUARY, 2021.

PRONOUNCED ON : 03RD MARCH, 2021.

JUDGMENT:- [Per: Manish Pitale, J.]

1. The petitioner, a registered Labour Union, has approached this court seeking a direction to respondent No.1-Municipal Corporation to restore the services of 43 sweepers and to pay their wages, who were engaged by respondent No.3-Contractor for the work of respondent-Municipal Corporation.

2. Since this petition was filed during the period when Covid-19 pandemic was prevailing with intensity, on 27/08/2020, this court recorded that the petition pertains to the cause of marginalized section of the Society and, therefore, a positive response was expected from respondent No.1-Municipal Corporation. In view of

AJN

3/6 912 Civ WP(st)-95646.20 (25-02-21) J.odt

the said order, affidavits-in-reply were filed by respondent No.1- Municipal Corporation as well as respondent No.3-Contractor. But, respondent No.2 i.e. the Labour Commissioner did not respond to the pendency of the present petition and, therefore, on 18/01/2021, this court expressed its displeasure and directed respondent No.2 to submit a report about the conciliation proceedings said to have been initiated with regard to the dispute raised by the petitioner-Union.

3. On 28/01/2021, the Assistant Commissioner of Labour, Panvel, was present in the court and it was brought on record that the conciliation proceedings were pending before the said officer. The said officer made a statement that in case the representatives of the petitioner-Union and those of respondent No.1-Municipal Corporation as also respondent No.3-Contractor appeared before the said officer on a particular date, a decision in the matter could be taken by him within a period of two weeks. Accordingly, this court directed the parties to appear before the said officer either themselves or through their representatives on 03/02/2021 and it was directed that the said officer would take appropriate decision in the matter within two weeks from 03/02/2021.

4. An affidavit-in-reply dated 18/02/2021 is filed on behalf of respondent No.2 stating that pursuant to the conciliation proceedings undertaken before the Assistant Commissioner of Labour, Panvel, all the 43 workers working as sweepers were

AJN

4/6 912 Civ WP(st)-95646.20 (25-02-21) J.odt

reinstated with respondent No.3-Contractor and, to that extent, the grievance of the said workers stood satisfied. It was further stated in the affidavit-in-reply that now the dispute was limited to the question of entitlement of the said workers towards back-wages upon their reinstatement. In that view of the matter, it was submitted that the said limited dispute could be referred to the appropriate tribunal/court in terms of Section 10 of the Industrial Disputes Act, 1947 ("the said Act") for adjudication on its own merits.

5. In this light, Mr. Kurle, learned counsel appearing for the petitioner-Union vehemently submitted that it was only because of filing of the present petition, which was entertained by this court, that respondent No.3-Contractor had finally come forward to restore the services of the said workers/sweepers. It was submitted that the stand taken by respondent No.3-Contractor that the said workers were themselves to blame for discontinuation of their services, was wholly untenable. On this basis, it was submitted that there was no question of the said workers being denied their wages, which were rightfully payable to them.

6. On the other hand, Mr. Rao, learned counsel appearing for respondent No.1-Municipal Corporation, Mr. Panchpor, learned A.G.P. for the State and Mr. Naidu, learned counsel appearing for respondent No.3-Contractor, all submitted that since the dispute

AJN

5/6 912 Civ WP(st)-95646.20 (25-02-21) J.odt

now stood limited to the entitlement of the said workers towards their back-wages, the dispute could be referred for adjudication as per Section 10 of the said Act.

7. We have heard learned counsel appearing for the rival parties and perused the material on record, including the affidavit-in-reply filed on behalf of respondent No.2. It is evident from the material on record that although initially, the dispute was regarding alleged illegal termination of the services of the said workers, now the dispute stood limited to the question of entitlement of wages of the said workers pursuant to their reinstatement. The affidavit-in-reply filed on behalf of respondent No.2 clearly records that in the conciliation proceedings before the Assistant Commissioner of Labour, Panvel, it was found that all 43 workers have been reinstated by respondent No.3 and that the dispute is now limited to the question of entitlement of back-wages.

8. We are of the view that since the rival parties are unable to come to a consensus on the question of back-wages, the dispute on the said limited issue can certainly be referred for adjudication under Section 10 of the said Act. In fact, in the affidavit-in-reply, it has been categorically stated on behalf of respondent No.2 that such dispute can be referred to the Industrial Court.

9. In view of the above, we are of the opinion that the present

AJN

6/6 912 Civ WP(st)-95646.20 (25-02-21) J.odt

writ petition can be disposed of on the basis of material that has come on record. Accordingly, it is directed that the Assistant Commissioner of Labour, Panvel, before whom the conciliation proceedings have been initiated, shall proceed to refer the aforesaid limited dispute pertaining to back-wages payable to the said workers/sweepers to the appropriate court/tribunal under Section 10 of the said Act. A decision in that regard be taken by the said officer within a limited period of two weeks from today. Upon such reference being made to the appropriate court/tribunal, the said court/tribunal shall take up the reference for consideration and disposal expeditiously and, in any case, dispose of such reference within a period of eight months from the date on which such reference is received by it.

10. Writ petition is disposed of in the aforestated terms.

(MANISH PITALE, J.)                                   (S. S. SHINDE, J.)




AJN