Jalindar Manikrao Rade vs The Managing Director Jaibhavani ...
2021 Latest Caselaw 4891 Bom

                                           1           ca-991-2020.doc



             IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE OF BOMBAY
                        BENCH AT AURANGABAD

                       CIVIL APPLICATION NO. 991 OF 2020
                                       IN
                         WRIT PETITION NO.351 OF 2019

 Jalinder Manikrao Rode                       ... Applicant
       Versus
 The Managing Director
 Jaibhawani Sahkari Sakhar Karkhand Ltd.,     ... Respondent
                                   ....
 Mr. M. S. Indani, Advocate for the applicant
 Mr. Pradeep Shahane, Advocate for the respondent
                                   ....

                                        CORAM : R. G. AVACHAT, J.

RESERVED ON : 18th FEBRUARY, 2021 PRONOUNCED ON : 18th MARCH, 2021

PER COURT :-

. The applicant (original respondent in Writ Petition

No.351 of 2019) has filed this application for withdrawal of a sum of

Rs.3,85,897/- deposited by the respondent (petitioner in writ

petition), pursuant to the order passed by this Court on 26.11.2019

in the writ petition.

2. The applicant claims to be a retired employee of the

respondent - sugar factory. He preferred Application IDA No.21 of

2015 against the respondent - sugar factory for recovery of money

1 of 5

2 ca-991-2020.doc

due on account of arrears of salary and service benefits. The Labour

Court allowed the application vide judgment and order dated

16.08.2017 directing the respondent - sugar factory to pay the

applicant a sum of Rs.3,65,345=62 Ps with 10% interest per annum,

besides, a sum of Rs.3,000/- towards cost of the said application.

3. According to the learned Advocate for the applicant, the

applicant is a senior citizen. He is in need of money for his

maintenance. The applicant is entitled to recover 70% of his monthly

salary for the period from July-2004 to October-2005 (16 months) in

terms of the agreement executed between the respondent - sugar

factory and the workers' union on 24.02.2005. The witness

examined on behalf of the respondent - sugar factory, has admitted

the liability.

4. Learned Advocate for the respondent - sugar factory

would on the other hand, submit that the order passed by the Labour

Court is under challenge in the writ petition. He urged for hearing of

the petition on merits. According to him, the applicant is not entitled

to receive the amount since issue of legality of closure needs to be

adjudicated upon and the claim of the employee for wages during

the closure period could be entertained only if the closure is held to

2 of 5

3 ca-991-2020.doc

be illegal. The issue of closure cannot be gone into by Labour Court

under Section 33-C(2) of the I. D. Act.

Learned Advocate would further submit that the

applicant would also not be entitled to claim amount of gratuity in

the proceedings initiated under Section 33-C(2) of the I.D. Act. In

support of his submissions, learned Advocate has relied on a

judgment dated 17.10.2016 of this Court in the case of Jaibhavani

Sahakari Sakhar Karkhana Ltd., Vs. Baban Achyutrao Kulkarni in

Writ Petition No.3696 of 2016. The following authorities have also

been relied on :-

(i) PAL VRS Employees Welfare Association Vs. Premier Automobiles Ltd. and another -(2002) III LLJ 415 Bom;

(ii) Pioneer Embroideries Ltd., Mumbai Vs. Prithvi Singh and Ors. 2009 I CLR 324;

(iii) Cement Corporation of India Vs. Presiding Officer, Labour Court and others - Himachal Pradesh High Court C.W.P. No.186/1996;

(iv) R.P.G. Cables Ltd. Vs. Roshan A. Sujan - 2002 (94) FLR 548;

(v) Getwell Board and Paper (Pvt) Ltd. Vs. Fakruddin S. Lokhandwala and another - 2007 (113) FLR 392;

(vi) Management of Kairbetta Estate Vs. Rajamanickam and ors - AIR 1960 SC 893.

                                                                           3 of 5





                                       4            ca-991-2020.doc

5. There cannot be any dispute over the legal proposition

adumbrated in the authorities cited (supra) by learned Advocate for

the respondent. It is also true that the writ petition is yet to be heard

on merits. I have perused the impugned judgment and order. Also

gone through the evidence in the case, particularly, cross

examination of the witness examined on behalf of the respondent

sugar factory. There was an agreement between the workers' union

and the sugar factory. Some of the workers have worked during the

closure period. Respondent - sugar factory had agreed to pay them

70% of their salary. Admittedly, the applicant has worked during the

closure period. An extract from the ledger account of the respondent

sugar factory was placed on record. The entries therein indicate that

the respondent sugar factory admits to have owed a sum of

Rs.1,63,862=00 Ps to the applicant towards salary and other dues. It

is an ascertained sum of money. Moreover, the witness Vishnu Yadav

examined on behalf of the respondent sugar factory has in no

uncertain terms, admitted that as per the ledger accounts the sugar

factory owed the applicant a sum of Rs.1,63,862=00 Ps towards

salary for the period of sixteen months.

                                                                            4 of 5





                                         5             ca-991-2020.doc

6. In view of the aforesaid evidence and the fact that the

applicant, a retired person, is in need of finance for maintenance of

himself and his family, I am inclined to grant the application.

7. The civil application is allowed in terms of prayer clause

(B).

8. The applicant shall furnish an undertaking along with

surety/security to the satisfaction of the Registrar (Judicial) of this

Court.

[ R. G. AVACHAT, J. ]

SMS

5 of 5