Bombay High Court
Sukhdeo Bhaguji Bulakhe vs M/S. Bajaj Auto Ltd on 24 November, 2022
Bench: Nitin W. Sambre
(36)-WP-1181-16.doc.
IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY
CIVIL APPELLATE JURISDICTION
BALAJI
Digitally
signed by
BALAJI
GOVINDRAO
WRIT PETITION NO.1181 OF 2016
GOVINDRAO PANCHAL
PANCHAL Date:
2022.11.25
10:29:31
WITH
+0530
INTERIM APPLICATION NO.1750 OF 2022
Sukhdeo Bhaguji Bulakhe ..Petitioner
Versus
M/s. Bajaj Auto Ltd. ..Respondent
Ms. Sangeeta Salvi i/by Seema Sarnaik, for the Petitioner.
Mr. Chetan Alai a/w Varun Joshi, for the Respondent.
CORAM : NITIN W. SAMBRE, J.
DATE : 24th NOVEMBER, 2022
P.C.
1. Contentions of counsel for the petitioner are, the writ
petition is covered by the judgment of this Court delivered in Writ
Petition No.4502 of 2006 with other connected matters decided on
1st February, 2021.
2. The subject matter of the petition is the award delivered
by the Labour Court at Pune on a reference made to it under the
provisions of the Industrial Disputes Act, 1947. The respondent
company, a manufacturer of two wheeler and three wheeler, appears
to have employed the petitioner. It is claimed that in the aforesaid
petition, the High Court has framed the following issues for its
considerations :-
BGP. 1 of 5
(36)-WP-1181-16.doc.
"(I) Whether the termination of services of temporary
workmen in the present case could be termed as
termination as a result of non-renewal of the contract
of employment on its expiry or under a stipulation in
that behalf contained in the contract and thus,
amounting to an exception to the definition of
'retrenchment' contained in Clause (oo) of Section 2 of
the ID Act? Or whether the rotational arrangement,
such as the one in the present case, where there are
continuous temporary engagements of the same
workmen over long periods of time (adopted as a
strategy to deny benefits of permanency to the
concerned workmen), does not amount to an
engagement on a fixed period contract so as to form an
exception under sub-clause (bb) of Clause (oo) of
Section 2 of the ID Act ?
(II) Whether, (a) Sundays and holidays during the period
of service could be counted within 240 days as per the
applicable Standing Orders so as to make up aggregate
service of 240 days in a year within the meaning of the
Standing Orders and (b) such 240 days should be
reckoned as forming part of the calendar year of 12
months immediately preceding the dates of
termination?
(III) Should a Labour Court dealing with terminations of
workmen in a reference under the ID Act refuse to
consider their claim of permanency ?"
3. It is the contention of counsel for the petitioner that all
those petitions were disposed of by this Court vide following order :-
"51. Rule is accordingly made absolute and the petition is
allowed by quashing and setting aside the impugned award
of the labour court and answering the references in the
BGP. 2 of 5
(36)-WP-1181-16.doc.
affirmative and awarding to all second party workmen
compensation in lieu of reinstatement as follows :
(i) Each of the second party workmen shall be
paid a lump-sum amount calculated at 85 days' salary,
inclusive of all allowances, for the number of years
each workman had actually worked irrespective of the
days a workman may have put in a year, calculated on
the basis of work during a calendar year, such calendar
year in which a workman may not have worked at all
being kept out of consideration while calculating the
amount. In calculating the salary for each workman,
the minimum salary that would be taken into account
would be Rs.8,000/- per month subject to the
condition that if on the date of termination, the salary
of any particular workman was more, then the
calculation would be made on actual last drawn salary.
The calculation in the abovesaid manner would be
made for a period up to the date of termination in the
year 1997-98. For the period after termination till
date, the basis of calculation would be lump-sum three
years of service on the basis aforesaid, namely, 85 days
for each calendar year i.e. salary for 255 days.
(ii) Each workman shall be entitled to receive
interest at the rate of 8 per cent per annum on the
amount calculated as above from 11 September, 2003
till this date and thereafter till payment or realization.
52. The cases of each of the second party workmen, who
are concerned in the accompanying writ petition, are on the
same footing as the workmen whose references have given
rise to Writ Petition No.4502 of 2006, and whose facts are
discussed above and whose references are determined as
above. For the reasons stated in their cases, the workmen
in all other references are entitled to the same relief as the
former workmen. Each of these latter workmen shall,
BGP. 3 of 5
(36)-WP-1181-16.doc.
accordingly, be entitled to receive the same compensation
as mentioned in clauses (i) and (ii) of paragraph 51 above."
4. The counsel as such would claim that identical issue is
raised in the present petition and that being so, the present writ
petition may be disposed of in terms of the aforesaid order of this
Court delivered in Writ Petition No.4502 of 2006 with other
connected matters decided on 1st February, 2021.
5. Counsel for the respondent/employer would oppose the
prayer, as according to him, the aforesaid judgment dated 1st
February, 2021 is subject matter of challenge in Special Leave
Petition before the Apex Court in which the notices are already
issued. He would further claim that the judicial discipline warrants
that the hearing of the writ petition be either adjourned or the
petition can be adjourned subject to outcome of the aforesaid SLP.
6. I have appreciated the said submissions.
7. From the record, it can be inferred and also not disputed
that the issue raised in the present petition is identical to the one
which is decided by this Court vide aforesaid order dated 1 st
February, 2021. In the aforesaid background, merely pendency of
the SLP before the Apex Court will not preclude this Court from
deciding the writ petition particularly when the order of this Court
dated 1st February, 2021 is not stayed or set aside.
BGP. 4 of 5
(36)-WP-1181-16.doc.
8. As such, the writ petition, in my opinion needs to be
allowed. The petition as such stands allowed in terms of the
judgment dated 1st February, 2021 delivered by this Court in Writ
Petition No.4502 of 2006 with other connect petitions.
9. This Court directs the respondent/employer to extend
the benefits which are given to the other similar employees as has
been directed in the aforesaid judgment dated 1 st February, 2021 in
paragraph 51.
10. In view of disposal of the petition, the interim
application also stands disposed of.
[NITIN W. SAMBRE, J.]
BGP. 5 of 5
