The State Of Maha. Thr Its ... vs Bhagwal Kawdu Shinde
2021 Latest Caselaw 14337 Bom

     LPA 424-11                                     1                         Judgment

                 IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY,
                           NAGPUR BENCH, NAGPUR.
LETTERS PATENT APPEAL NO. 424/2011 IN WRIT PETITION NO. 4902/2009 (D)

     1.    The State of Maharashtra,
           through its Secretary, Gram Vikas &
           Jalsansadharan Department,
           Mantralaya, Mumbai-32.
     2.    The Director, Social Forestry Department,
           Maharashtra State, Madhyawarti Building, Pune.
     3.    The Deputy Director,
           Social Forestry Department, 8th Floor,
           New Administrative Building,
           Near Zilla Parishad, Nagpur.
     4.    The Plantation Officer,
           Social Forestry, Umrer Range,
           Tah. Umrer, Dist. Nagpur.                                     APPELLANTS
                                      .....VERSUS.....
     Bhagwat Kawdu Shinde,
     R/o Gaosut, Po. Bamni, Tq. Umrer,
     Dist. Nagpur.                                                      RESPONDENT

           Shri A.S. Fulzele, Additional Government Pleader for the appellants.
                       Shri A.J. Pathak, counsel for the respondent.

     CORAM : A. S. CHANDURKAR AND G.A. SANAP, JJ.

DATE : 04TH OCTOBER, 2021.

ORAL JUDGMENT (PER : A.S. CHANDURKAR, J.)

The challenge raised in this letters patent appeal is to the

order passed by the learned Single Judge on 08.02.2010 in Writ Petition

No.4902 of 2009. By that order, the learned Single Judge was pleased to

affirm the order passed by the Industrial Court in Complaint U.L.P.

No.388 of 2002 by which the respondent was granted benefit of the

Government Resolution dated 19.10.1996.

LPA 424-11 2 Judgment

2. The facts on record indicate that the respondent was engaged

as a Chowkidar/Labourer with the appellant no.4-Department since

03.02.1983. His services were terminated on 24.08.1987 but pursuant to

the interim orders passed by the Labour Court in the complaint filed by

him, he was reinstated in service and he continued in employment

thereafter. Subsequent order of termination in the year 1999 was also

subjected to challenge and by orders passed in those proceedings the

services of the respondent were continued. Since benefit of Government

Resolution dated 19.10.1996 was denied to the respondent he

approached the Industrial Court by filing complaint under Section 28 of

the Maharashtra Recognition of Trade Unions and Prevention of Unfair

Labour Practices Act, 1971. By its judgment dated 31.03.2009, said

complaint was allowed and the services of the respondent were directed

to be absorbed in a Class-IV post as per Government Resolution dated

19.10.1996. The writ petition filed by the appellants came to be

dismissed after considering the findings recorded by the Industrial Court.

Hence, this appeal.

3. Shri A.S. Fulzele, Additional Government Pleader for the

appellants submitted that since continuation of services of the respondent

was on the basis of orders passed by the Labour Court/Industrial Court,

such benefit could not be granted to the respondent by relying upon the

LPA 424-11 3 Judgment

Government Resolution dated 19.10.1996. It was his contention that the

services rendered by the respondent were from 03.02.1983 to

24.08.1987. Since the respondent was not in service for a period of five

years preceding 01.11.1994 he was not entitled for the benefit under the

said Government Resolution. This aspect was not considered by the

learned Single Judge and hence the impugned order was liable to be set

aside.

4. Shri A.J. Pathak, learned counsel for the respondent

supported the impugned order. According to him the finding recorded by

the Industrial Court that the respondent rendered continuous service from

03.02.1983 was a finding of fact. There was no clause in the Government

Resolution dated 19.10.1996 that service rendered by virtue of interim

orders passed by the Court could not be taken into consideration.

Moreover the finding that the employees junior to the respondent were

retained in service as recorded by the Industrial Court had not been

shown to be incorrect. He therefore submits that there was no reason to

interfere with the impugned order.

5. On hearing the learned counsel for the parties and on perusal

of the order passed by the Industrial Court as well as by the learned

Single Judge, we do not find any reason to interfere with the order passed

LPA 424-11 4 Judgment

in Writ Petition No.4902 of 2009. The Industrial Court has considered

the entire evidence on record and has thereafter recorded a finding that

the respondent rendered continuous service from 03.02.1983. Further

finding recorded is that juniors to the respondent were retained in service

and there was no evidence in rebuttal by the appellants. As regards the

submission made on behalf of the appellants that service rendered

pursuant to the orders passed by the Court need not be taken into

consideration, we find that on the contrary Clause 10(A) of that

Government Resolution requires the appellants to take cognizance of such

orders and then ensure that such proceedings are withdrawn by the

concerned employee after giving benefit of such orders. There is no

clause pointed out which disentitled the employee who has approached

the Court from taking advantage of the orders passed by the Court in

proceedings initiated by him. Hence said contention cannot be accepted.

6. Considering the material available on record, we find that the

Industrial Court was justified in granting relief to the respondent. The

learned Single Judge rightly did not interfere in writ jurisdiction. In that

view of the matter, we do not find any merit in the letters patent appeal.

It is accordingly dismissed with no order as to costs.

              (G.A. SANAP, J.)              (A.S. CHANDURKAR, J.)
APTE