Bombay High Court
Maha. State Road Transport ... vs Balaji Madhukar Konkawar on 1 August, 2022
Bench: Avinash G. Gharote
wp 299.22. 1/4
IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY
NAGPUR BENCH, NAGPUR
Writ Petition No.299/2022
Maharashtra State Road Transport Corporation, Chandrapur V Balaji Konkawar
*************************************************************************************
Office notes, Office Memoranda of
Coram, appearances, Court's orders Court's or Judge's Orders
or directions and Registrar's orders.
*************************************************************************************
Mr. P.S. Gawai, Advocate for petitioner.
Mr. Y.R. Kinkhede, Advocate with Mr. A.B. Tikle, Advocate for respondent.
CORAM : AVINASH G. GHAROTE, J.
DATE : 01-08-2022
Heard Mr. Gawai, learned Counsel for the petitioner
and Mr. Kinkhede, learned Counsel for the respondent.
2. The judgment dated 14-01-2020, passed by the
learned Labour Court, Chandrapur, whereby the application
under Section 33-C(2) of the Industrial Disputes Act (for short,
'the ID Act'), has been allowed and the present petitioner has been
directed to pay Rs. 8,09,218/- towards the arrears of wages for the
period from October 1993 till 20-01-2011 with simple interest @
of 12% per annum from the date of filing of application till its
actual realization, within one month from the receipt of the order
is under challenge.
3. The factual position is spelt out in the order dated
12-01-2007, passed by the learned Industrial Court, Chandrapur,
wp 299.22. 2/4
while deciding Complaint (ULP) No.86/2004, in which finding
that there was a Settlement of the year 1985 based upon Clause 19
(i) which, is quoted in para 8 therein, it was found that the
respondent was entitled for regularization of his services on the
conditions as contained therein. The order of the learned
Industrial Court dated 12-01-2007 is quoted as under :
"1] The complaint is partly allowed.
2] It is declared that the respondent has engaged in
unfair labour practice under Item nos. 6 and 9 of
Schedule IV of the Act by continuing complainant
to do work on daily wages after completion of 180
days.
3] The respondent is desisted from indulging in
unfair labour practice.
4] The respondent is directed to regularize the
services of complainant on the post of Cleaner w.e.f.
the date of completion of 180 days service subject
to his selection by the Competent Committee and
on clear vacancy of the post as provided under
Clause 19(i) of the Settlement of 1985 and decision
of Writ Petition No.4738/2002."
4. It is not in dispute that, subsequent thereto, in the year
2010, the competent selection committee selected the respondent
in a clear vacancy. As a result of which, the respondent came to be
appointed by order dated 20-01-2011 (pg 34). Thereafter,
application came to filed under Section 33-C(2) of the ID Act, in
wp 299.22. 3/4
which it was contended that the respondent is entitled for
regularization of his services w.e.f. October 1993 and therefore he
was entitled for the wages from October 1993 till 20-01-2011,
which came to be allowed as indicated above.
5. Mr. Gawai, learned Counsel for the petitioner
contends that under Section 33-C(2) of the ID Act, there cannot
be any adjudication whatsoever and the proceedings, are merely
for recovery of money dues from the employer. He further
contends that looking to the terms of Clause 19 of the Settlement
of 1985 and operative part 4 of the order dated 12-01-2007, all
requirements were to coexist. It is contended that though the
respondent had completed 180 days of service in October 1993,
his selection by the committee was only done on 20-01-2011 in a
clear vacancy, in which situation, all the three conditions came to
be satisfied only on 20-01-2011 and therefore it was not
permissible for the Labour Court to have allowed the application
filed under Section 33-C(2) of the ID Act.
6. Mr. Kinkhede, learned Counsel for the respondent
submits that since the respondent was found to have completed
180 days of service in October 1993, the employment of the
respondent would relate back to October 1993 and therefore he
was entitled to arrears of wages from that time and since this was
spelt out from the order dated 12-01-2007 of the Industrial Court,
the question of any adjudication did not arise and therefore the
impugned order dated 14-01-2020 is liable to be sustained.
wp 299.22. 4/4
7. A perusal of para 4 of the order dated 12-01-2007
more particularly Clause 19(i) of the Settlement of 1985 as quoted
in para 8 therefore would indicate that, for the purpose of
regularization, all the three conditions, as enumerated in Clause
19 (i) of the Settlement of 1985 have to coexist. In the instant
case, such a situation occurred only on 20-01-2011, as a result of
which, the respondent came to be entitled for regularization on
20-01-2011 and not earlier thereto. That being the position, the
finding rendered by the learned Labour Court, is clearly erroneous
as it does not consider the above position.
8. Therefore, the impugned judgment passed in IDA
Case No.10/2016 dated 14-01-2020 is hereby quashed and set
aside.
9. The application under Section 33-C(2) of the ID Act
filed by the respondent is dismissed.
10. The petitioner is permitted to withdraw the amount
deposited in this Court.
11. No costs.
(Avinash G. Gharote, J.)
Deshmukh
