Secretary (Forests) Revenue And ... vs Shri Bhimrao Janardhan Ther And ...
2023 Latest Caselaw 2764 Bom

                                                                              WP 104 of 2017.odt
                                                   1

                    IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY
                              NAGPUR BENCH AT NAGPUR

                               WRIT PETITION NO.104/2017

     PETITIONERS :             1. Secretary (Forests)
                                  Revenue and Forest
                                  Department, Mantralaya.

                               2. Deputy Director
                                  Social Forestry Division,
                                  Ramdaspeth, Akola.

                               3. Plantation Officer,
                                  Social Forestry, Talkies Road,
                                  Karanja, District Washim.

                                            ...VERSUS...

     RESPONDENTS : 1. Shri Bhimrao Janardhan Ther
                      At Post Ladegaon, Tq. Karanja,
                      District : Washim.

                               2. The Labour Court, Akola
                                  Through its Presiding Officer at Akola.

     -----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
                       Shri N.R. Patil, AGP for petitioners
                       Mrs. Sneha Dhote, Advocate (appointed) for respondent no.1
     -----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------

                                       CORAM : AVINASH G. GHAROTE, J.

DATE : 21/03/2023

ORAL JUDGMENT

1. Heard Shri N.R. Patil, learned Assistant Government

Pleader for the petitioners and Mrs. Sneha Dhote, learned counsel

(appointed) for the respondent no.1/employee.

WP 104 of 2017.odt

2. The petition challenges the award dated 08/07/2014

passed by the learned Labour Court answering the reference in the

affirmative and holding that the petitioner/employer has illegally

terminated the services of the respondent no.1 and has further

directed reinstatement with continuity of service. What is material to

note is that the witness for the petitioner/employer has clearly

admitted that the respondent no.1 was working with the petitioner/

employer since 15/07/1988 till 01/04/1998 and his services were

terminated without following the provisions of the Industrial

Disputes Act. That apart, though a plea was raised that the

respondent no.1 was engaged under the Employment Guarantee

Scheme (EGS), there is no material placed on record to substantiate

that plea.

3. Since there is a categorical admission regarding the

employment of the respondent no.1 for the aforesaid duration, in my

considered view, there is no reason or scope to interfere in the award

passed by the learned Labour Court dated 08/07/2014, which is

impugned herein. Though it is contended that the back wages could

not have been granted from 01/04/1998, however, considering that

the amount is only a sum of Rs.84,455/-, I am not inclined to accept

this position. The writ petition is, therefore, without any merit and is

WP 104 of 2017.odt

accordingly dismissed. The amount, deposited in this Court by the

petitioners, be paid to the respondent no.1 along with interest, if

any.

4. The fees, be paid to the learned appointed Counsel for

the respondent no.1/employee, as per rules.

5. Rule stands discharged. No order as to costs.

(AVINASH G. GHAROTE, J.)

Wadkar