Dinkar Yeshwant Jadhav vs The State Of Maharashtra Through The ...
2023 Latest Caselaw 13231 Bom

Bombay High Court

Dinkar Yeshwant Jadhav vs The State Of Maharashtra Through The ... on 21 December, 2023

Author: Ravindra V. Ghuge

Bench: Ravindra V. Ghuge

2023:BHC-AUG:27297-DB


                                                                        15117.23wp
                                                  (1)

                     IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY
                                BENCH AT AURANGABAD

                                  WRIT PETITION NO. 15117 OF 2023

                Prakash Shamrao Bhagat,
                Age: 68 years, Occ: Agri.,
                R/o Lohara, Tq. Lohara,
                Dist. Osmanabad                                ....PETITIONER

                        VERSUS

                1.      The State of Maharashtra,
                        Through the Secretary,
                        Irrigation Department, Mantralaya,
                        Mumbai

                2.      Asst. Labour Commissioner,
                        Latur, Tq. and Dist. Latur

                3.      Dy. Labour Commissioner, Aurangabad,
                        Near baba Chowk, Aurangabad,
                        Tq. and Dist. Aurangabad

                4.      Godavari Marathwada Irrigation
                        Development Corporation,
                        Through Superintending Engineer,
                        Administrative CADA, Beed,
                        District Beed                          ....RESPONDENTS

                                              AND
                                  WRIT PETITION NO. 12128 OF 2022
                Dinkar Yeshwant Jadhav,
                Age: 68 years, Occu: Agri.,
                R/o Karajgaon, Tq. Omerga,
                Dist. Osmanabad                                ....PETITIONER

                        VERSUS

                1.      The State of Maharashtra,
                        Through the Secretary,
                        Irrigation Department, Mantralaya,
                        Mumbai
                                                          15117.23wp
                                 (2)


2.    Asst. Labour Commissioner,
      Latur, Tq. and Dist. Latur

3.    Dy. Labour Commissioner, Aurangabad,
      Near baba Chowk, Aurangabad,
      Tq. and Dist. Aurangabad

4.    Godavari Marathwada Irrigation
      Development Corporation,
      Through Superintending Engineer,
      Administrative CADA, Beed,
      District Beed                           ....RESPONDENTS
                                ....
Mr Suraj V. Gundre, Advocate for Petitioners;
Mr A. B. Girase, G.P. for Respondent Nos.1 to 3

                          CORAM : RAVINDRA V. GHUGE
                                          AND
                                  Y. G. KHOBRAGADE, JJ.

                            DATE : 21st December, 2023


ORAL JUDGMENT (Per : Ravindra V. Ghuge, J.)

1. Rule. Rule made returnable forthwith and heard

finally by the consent of the respective parties.

2. In both these Writ Petitions, the Petitioners are

aggrieved by the in-action on the part of the statutory authorities

under the Industrial Disputes Act, 1947 in relation to the demand

notices of the Petitioners. Though the Petitioners have raised an

industrial dispute through a demand notice under Section 2-A of

the Industrial Disputes Act, 1947 (for short 'the said Act') in 15117.23wp

2018, which admittedly is received by the office of the

Government Labour Officer, Latur (GLO) on 26/10/2018, the

Petitioners are compelled to approach this Court for seeking

directions, to the Appropriate Government (Deputy Commissioner

Labour, Aurangabad) to pass an order.

3. Both these Petitioners had approached the Labour

Court under the MRTU & PULP Act, 1971 for challenging their

oral terminations, after 14 years delay. On the ground of delay,

they suffered adverse orders and approached the learned Single

Judge of this Court in Writ Petition Nos.4090/2003 and

4091/2003, which were decided on 07/08/2015. In paragraph

No.10 of the order passed in the Writ Petitions, the learned Single

Bench of this Court permitted the Petitioners to raise an industrial

dispute under Section 2-A of the said Act, keeping in view that

there was a 14 years delay in filing a Complaint (ULP) before the

Labour Court in the backdrop of the limitation of only 90 days.

4. Thereafter, the Petitioners submitted their demand

notices dated 29/01/2016 before the Government Labour Officer

at Latur. Since, they could not gather the fate of these 15117.23wp

proceedings, they approached this Court for directions under

Article 226 for issuance of a Writ of Mandamus.

5. We appreciate the efforts taken by the learned

Government Pleader Shri. Girase in placing before us the original

files pertaining to the demand notice of these two Petitioners. On

perusing the original files, it is obvious that the Conciliation

Officer submitted a failure report on 26/10/2018 to the Deputy

Commissioner (Labour), Chhatrapati Sambhajinagar. We are

informed that the Deputy Labour Commissioner, Chhatrapati

Sambhajinagar joined duties on 28/07/2021.

6. While perusing the original files, we noticed a report

prepared by the office of the Conciliation Officer. The same is

signed by him. The remark below his report indicates the

proposed decision of the DyCL. However, the files are believed

to be pending with the Deputy Labour Commissioner. The typed

order/remark at the bottom indicates as "decision taken by Deputy

Commissioner (Labour) .... REFUSED".

7. It is surprising that the said conclusion/decision does

not carry the signature of the Deputy Labour Commissioner. In

fact, the Conciliation Officer had rightly submitted a confidential 15117.23wp

report that, as the case is with regard to termination, the matter

should be referred to the Labour Court at Latur.

8. It does not call for any debate that, an industrial

dispute under Section 2-A of the I.D. Act, 1947 has to be taken up

in conciliation and either has to be closed with a settlement or,

upon failure, has to be referred to the Competent Court for

adjudication. Section 2-A defines an Industrial Dispute pertaining

to termination of services, as under :-

[2A. Dismissal, etc., of an individual workman to be deemed to be an industrial dispute.--

[(1)]Where any employer discharges, dismisses, retrenches, or otherwise terminates the services of an individual workman, any dispute or difference between that workman and his employer connected with, or arising out of, such discharge, dismissal, retrenchment or termination shall be deemed to be an industrial dispute notwithstanding that no other workman nor any union of workmen is a party to the dispute.]

[(2)Notwithstanding anything contained in section l0, any such workman as is specified in sub-section (1)may, make an application direct to the Labour Court or Tribunal for adjudication of the dispute referred to therein after the expiry of forty-five days from the date he has made the application to the Conciliation Officer of the appropriate Government for conciliation of the dispute, and in receipt of such application the Labour Court or Tribunal shall have powers and jurisdiction to adjudicate upon the dispute, as if it were a dispute referred to it by the appropriate 15117.23wp

Government in accordance with the provisions of this Act and all the provisions of this Act shall apply in relation to such adjudication as they apply in relation to an industrial dispute referred to it by the appropriate Government.

(3) The application referred to in sub-section (2) shall be made to the Labour Court or Tribunal before the expiry of three years from the date of discharge, dismissal, retrenchment or otherwise termination of service as specified in sub-section (1).] [Emphasis supplied]

9. It is, thus, clear that, a dismissal/termination/removal,

etc. of an individual workman is deemed to be an industrial

dispute, whether there is a discharge/dismissal/ retrenchment/

termination. This would even include an oral termination which

can be said to be otherwise termination. In this backdrop, the

Deputy Labour Commissioner cannot refuse to refer the Dispute

to the Labour Court for adjudication, since Section 2A provides

such a dispute to be a deemed industrial dispute.

10. Though the learned Government Pleader has tried to

convey to the Court on instructions from the Authorities present in

the Court that, the files were not deliberately kept pending, he

graciously concedes that, an order should have been passed

expeditiously.

15117.23wp

11. In view of the above, both these Writ Petitions are

disposed off, with a direction to the Deputy Labour

Commissioner, Chhatrapati Sambhajinagar, to pass an order of

referring the industrial dispute, concerning these two Petitioners,

under Section 2-A of the said Act, to the Labour Court, Latur

within 15 days from today.

12. We could have ordered costs to be paid by the Deputy

Labour Commissioner to each of these two Petitioners. However,

the learned Government Pleader pleads for leniency on the ground

that the said officer has recently taken charge. The learned

Advocate for the Petitioners consents.

13. Before parting with this matter, we deem it

appropriate to direct the Deputy Labour Commissioner,

Chhatrapati Sambhajinagar, to issue instructions to the Assistant

Labour Commissioner/GLO, within his jurisdiction, not to keep

the disputes pending, inasmuch as, he shall trace out from his

office, whether any failure reports are pending orders and

appropriate orders on such matters shall be passed by the Deputy

Labour Commissioner within 45 days from today.

15117.23wp

14. Rule is discharged.

(Y. G. KHOBRAGADE, J.) (RAVINDRA V. GHUGE, J.) sjk

Signed by: Sachin J Kulkarni Designation: PA To Honourable Judge Date: 27/12/2023 12:14:12