Bombay High Court
The Indian Card Clothing Co. Ltd vs Sudam Sakharam Wathare And Ors on 19 August, 2024
2024:BHC-AS:33237
Gayatri Shimpi 14-WP-7334-2011 (FC).docx
IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY
CIVIL APPELLATE JURISDICTION
WRIT PETITION NO. 7856 OF 2005
The Indian Card Clothing Co. Ltd. Pimpri Pune ....Petitioner
V/s.
1. Sudam Sakharam Wathare
(since deceased) through legal heirs
Kailas Jagtap Chawl
Amran - Nagar, Pimple Gurav
Pune - 411 027.
1(a) Jarita Sudam Wathore
Age : 55 years, Occu: Housewife,
W/o. Late Mr. Sudam Sakharam Wathare
(deceased Respondent No.1)
Add : Shri Sai Shardha Housing Society,
F-4, Flat No.306, Gharkul, Spain Road,
CHIKALI, Pune - 411 062.
1(b) Rama Vasanta Sarkate
D/o. Late Mr. Sudam Sakharam Wathare
(deceased Respondent No.1)
Age 38, Occupation: House Wife
Add: Shivaji Nagar Hiwara Bk.,
Buddha, Mehakar, Maharashtra-411 061.
1C Rahul Sudam Wathore
s/o. Late Mr. Sudam Sakharam Wathore
(deceased Respondent No.1)
Age 35, Occupation : Farmer,
Add: Shri Sai Shardha Housing
Society, F-3, Flat No. 306, Gharkul,
Spain Road, Chikali, Pune-411 062.
1D Subhash Sudam Wathore
Age 37, Occupation : Farmer,
s/o. Late Mr. Sudam Sakharam Wathore
(deceased Respondent No.1)
Age 35, Occupation : Farmer,
Add: Shri Sai Shardha Housing
GAYATRI
RAJENDRA ___Page No.1 of 16___
SHIMPI
Digitally signed by
GAYATRI RAJENDRA
SHIMPI
8 August 2024
Date: 2024.08.20
11:45:41 +0530
::: Uploaded on - 20/08/2024 ::: Downloaded on - 21/08/2024 03:55:57 :::
Gayatri Shimpi 14-WP-7334-2011 (FC).docx
Society, F-3, Flat No.306, Gharkul,
Spain Road, Chikali, Pune -100 062. ....Respondents
WITH
WRIT PETITION NO. 7334 OF 2011
The Indian Card Clothing Co. Ltd. Pimpri Pune ....Petitioner
V/s.
1. Sudam Sakharam Wathare
(since deceased) through legal heirs
Kailas Jagtap Chawl
Amran - Nagar, Pimple Gurav
Pune - 411 027.
1(a) Jarita Sudam Wathore
Age : 55 years, Occu: Housewife,
W/o. Late Mr. Sudam Sakharam Wathare
(deceased Respondent No.1)
Add : Shri Sai Shardha Housing Society,
F-4, Flat No.306, Gharkul, Spain Road,
CHIKALI, Pune - 411 062.
1(b) Rama Vasanta Sarkate
D/o. Late Mr. Sudam Sakharam Wathare
(deceased Respondent No.1)
Age 38, Occupation: House Wife
Add: Shivaji Nagar Hiwara Bk.,
Buddha, Mehakar, Maharashtra-411 061.
1C Rahul Sudam Wathore
s/o. Late Mr. Sudam Sakharam Wathore
(deceased Respondent No.1)
Age 35, Occupation : Farmer,
Add: Shri Sai Shardha Housing
Society, F-3, Flat No. 306, Gharkul,
Spain Road, Chikali, Pune-411 062.
1D Subhash Sudam Wathore
Age 37, Occupation : Farmer,
s/o. Late Mr. Sudam Sakharam Wathore
(deceased Respondent No.1)
Age 35, Occupation : Farmer,
Add: Shri Sai Shardha Housing
Society, F-3, Flat No.306, Gharkul,
___Page No.2 of 16___
8 August 2024
::: Uploaded on - 20/08/2024 ::: Downloaded on - 21/08/2024 03:55:57 :::
Gayatri Shimpi 14-WP-7334-2011 (FC).docx
Spain Road, Chikali, Pune -100 062. ....Respondents
________________________________________________
Mr. Sujeet P. Salkar, for the Petitioner.
Mr. Rajesh Adrekar i/b Mr. Mathews Nedumpara for Respondents.
________________________________________________
CORAM : SANDEEP V. MARNE, J.
RESERVED ON : 8 AUGUST 2024
PRONOUNCED ON : 19 AUGUST 2024
Judgment:
1) Both these Petitions are filed by the employer-The Indian Card
Clothing Company Limited aggrieved by the decisions of Labour and
Industrial Courts in directing reinstatement of Respondent - workmen as
well as granting permanency to him on completion of 240 days of
services. In earlier round of litigation, the termination of Respondent-
workmen was set aside and he was directed to be reinstated in services
with continuity and 50% back wages by Labour Courts order dated 15
February 2005. Labour Court's order dated 15 February 2005 came to be
upheld by Industrial Court on 21 September 2005. The orders dated 15
February 2005 passed by Labour Court and 21 October 2005 passed by
the Industrial Court are subject matter of challenge in Writ Petition
No.7856 of 2005. It appears that on account of non-grant of any interim
order in Writ Petition No.7856 of 2005, Respondent-workmen was
reinstated in service on 13 April 2006 and he continued to work on daily
wage basis. On completion of 240 days of service, he filed
Complaint(ULP) No. 54 of 2007 seeking the benefit of permanency,
which has been allowed by Industrial Court, Pune by Judgment and Order
dated 18 April 2011 directing grant of benefit of permanency to
Respondent-workmen on completion of 240 days of service. Petitioner-
___Page No.3 of 16___
8 August 2024
Gayatri Shimpi 14-WP-7334-2011 (FC).docx
Employer has filed Writ Petition No.7334 of 2011 challenging the
Judgment and Order dated 18 April 2011 passed by Industrial Court in
Complainant ULP No. 54 of 2007.
2) Briefly stated, facts of the case are that Petitioner is a company
incorporated under the Provisions of Companies Act, 1956 having
registered office and factory at Pune. Petitioner is engaged in the business
of manufacturing of Card Clothing. It had employed about 350 workmen
at the relevant time who were represented by a recognized Union.
Respondent No.1 was engaged by Petitioner in its Pune factory as a casual
workman with effect from 1 September 1990 on daily wage @ 36 per day.
It is Petitioner's case that on 17 October 1990, Respondent-Workman
climbed coconut tree situated in the factory premises on his own to
remove coconuts for his own use, he fell down from the tree and suffered
injuries. He was first taken to Lokmanya Tilak Hospital, Pune and was
thereafter shifted to ESI Hospital, Pune for treatment. It is Petitioner's case
that no employee or Officer of the Petitioner had instructed the first
Respondent to climb the tree and that therefore, the accident did not
occur during the course of employment of first Respondent with
Petitioner. That since the first Respondent was daily rated casual employee
engaged on daily wage basis, its employment automatically came to an end
on 17 October 1990 itself when the accident occurred.
3) In the above background, the first Respondent-workman raised a
demand for offering him permanent employment and latter approached
Labour Court, Pune by filing Complaint (ULP) No.30 of 1992 on 13
February 1992, under Items 1(a) (b) (d) (f) and (g) of Schedule IV of the
Maharashtra Recognition of Trade Unions and Prevention of Unfair
Labour Practices Act, 1971 (MRTU and PULP Act) praying for
___Page No.4 of 16___
8 August 2024
Gayatri Shimpi 14-WP-7334-2011 (FC).docx
reinstatement with back wages and continuity of service. Since there was
delay of two days in filing the complaint, application for condonation of
delay was filed, which was allowed by order dated 8 May 1998. Petitioner
resisted the complaint by filing the written statement. Both the parties led
evidence in support of their respective cases. First Respondent examined
himself and two other witnesses viz. Dr. Umakant P. Wani and Dr. Arvind
V. Bhave. Petitioner examined Captain L. K. Navale and Mr. Sudhir
Phatak as its witnesses. After considering the pleadings, documentary and
oral evidence, Labour Court proceeded to allow the complaint by its
Judgment and Order dated 15 February 2005 and directed reinstatement
of first Respondent on his original post with continuity of service and 50%
back wages from the date of termination till reinstatement. Petitioner filed
Revision ULP No.29 of 2005 before the Industrial Court, Pune which has
been dismissed by Judgment and Order dated 21 October 2005.
Aggrieved by the orders passed by the Labour Court on 15 February 2005
and by the Industrial Court on 21 October 2005 Petitioner has filed Writ
Petition No.7856 of 2005. By order dated 21 November 2005, this Court
admitted the Petition and refused to grant any interim relief.
4) It appears that Petitioner had deposited amount of Rs. 20,000/-
before the Industrial Court. This Court directed that withdrawal of the
said amount by the first Respondent would be subject to the result of the
Petition. It appears that Respondent No.1 withdrew amount of about Rs.
64,000/- from Industrial Court. Petitioner filed Letters Patent Appeal No.
11 of 2006 before Division Bench challenging the order dated 21
November 2005. The Appeal was however dismissed observing that the
there was no ground for any interim relief.
___Page No.5 of 16___
8 August 2024
Gayatri Shimpi 14-WP-7334-2011 (FC).docx
5) It appears that on account of non-grant of interim relief by this
Court Petitioner made an offer of employment to the first Respondent on
5 April 2006 and issued him appointment order dated 13 April 2007
subject to the decision of Writ Petition No. 7856 of 2005. Respondent
was paid wages in accordance with the minimum wages specified for
Engineering Industry category.
6) Respondent No.1 accepted the appointment and was paid daily
wages of Rs. 84.64 in addition to special allowance of Rs.28.58 and House
Rent Allowance 56.66 per day. First Respondent filed Complaint ULP
No.54 of 2007 before Industrial Court, Pune claiming the status of
permanent workman and also wages of permanent watchman as agreed
under various settlements. Complaint ULP No. 54 of 2007 was opposed
by the Petitioner by filing written statement. Application for interim relief
filed by Respondent No.1 for direction to pay wages of watchman as well
as Rs.1 lakh towards back wages came to be rejected by order dated 21 July
2007 observing that Petitioner had already deposited back wages of
Rs.20,000/- in Revision ULP No. 29 of 2005.
7) Industrial Court thereafter proceeded to allow Complaint ULP No.
54 of 2007 directing Petitioner to make first Respondent permanent in its
establishment on completion of 240 days of service and to grant benefits
of settlement signed with the Union from the date of making him
permanent. The order was made subject to decision in Writ Petition
No.7856 of 2005. Aggrieved by the Judgment and Order dated 18 April
2011, Petitioner has filed Writ Petition No.7334 of 2011. By order dated
13 January 2012 this Court admitted Writ Petition No.7334 of 2011.
Interim relief was however refused on the ground that the order of the
Industrial Court was subject to Writ Petition No.7856 of 2005.
___Page No.6 of 16___
8 August 2024
Gayatri Shimpi 14-WP-7334-2011 (FC).docx
8) It appears that first Respondent attained the age of superannuation
in 2011. During pendency of the present Petitions, the first Respondent
passed away on 25 April 2021. His legal heirs have been brought on
record in both the Petitions.
9) Mr. Salkar, the learned counsel appearing for Petitioner in both the
Petitions would submit that the order of reinstatement passed by the
Labour Court in the first round of litigation is ex-facie erroneous. That the
first Respondent worked only for 37 days from 1 September 1990 to 17
October 1990, when he suffered accident due to his own acts. That for
rendering services only for 37 days, no right was created in first
Respondent to remain in continuous service of Petitioner. That the
accident suffered by Respondent No.1 is not attributable to the duties
performed by him. That there is no evidence on record to prove that any
Supervisor or other official of the Petitioner instructed first Respondent to
climb the coconut tree. Therefore, Labour Court's finding about the first
Respondent suffering injuries during the course of performing the duties
is clearly perverse. He would further submit that the Labour Court has
erred in computing the period of alleged hospitalization for counting 240
days of service. That it is incomprehensible that the first Respondent
would be continuously hospitalised from 17 October 1990 to 31 October
1991 for having suffered fracture due to fall from a coconut tree. He
would take me through the evidence of doctors examined by the first
Respondent to demonstrate as to how no evidence was led in support of
continuous hospitalization of the first Respondent. That in fact Dr. Bhave
admitted that he had not even examined the first Respondent. Dr.
Umakant P. Wani specifically admitted that the first Respondent was
admitted in the hospital on 9 April 1991. That, therefore, there is no
___Page No.7 of 16___
8 August 2024
Gayatri Shimpi 14-WP-7334-2011 (FC).docx
explanation for gap period for 17 October 1990 to 9 April 1991. The
evidence on record indicates that the first Respondent was discharged on
17 May 1991. That therefore, hospitalization only from 9 April 1991 to 17
May 1991 is proved. That this concrete evidence on record is completely
ignored by the Labour Court while recording perverse finding that the
first Respondent remain hospitalized from 17 October 1990 to 31
October 1991 and thereafter it committed further error by computing the
said period for the purpose of Section 25-B(i) the Industrial Disputes Act.
He would therefore submit that the Judgment and Order dated 15
February 2005 passed by the Labour Court is wholly erroneous and liable
to be set aside. Since the Revisionary Court failed to correct the obvious
errors committed by the Labour Court, Industrial Court's order dated 21
October 2005 is also liable to be set aside.
10) So far as Writ Petition No.7334 of 2011 is concerned Mr. Salkar
would submit that the Industrial Court has erred in counting the period of
service rendered by first Respondent during pendency of the proceedings
for determining 240 days of service within the meaning of clause 4-C of
the Model Standing Orders. He would submit that engagement of the first
Respondent was on without prejudice basis on account of non-grant of
interim order by this court in Writ Petition No.7856 of 2005 and that
therefore, the period of service rendered by him cannot be considered for
grant of any further benefit. That if the period of engagement after 2006 is
ignored, the first Respondent has not completed 240 days of service and
that he was not entitled to be granted permanency. That the Industrial
Court has erred in awarding wages under the settlements without
appreciating the fact that the first Respondent was mere a daily wage
worker and the terms of settlement were applicable only to skilled or
clerical workers.
___Page No.8 of 16___
8 August 2024
Gayatri Shimpi 14-WP-7334-2011 (FC).docx
11) In support of his contentions Mr. Salkar would rely upon Judgment
of the Supreme Court in Hindustan Petroleum Corporation Ltd. Vs.
Ashok Ranghba Ambre1 and judgment of this Court in Hemant
Babruvahan Parchake Vs. Social Welfare Officer Nagpur and others 2 and
Judgment of this Court in Punjab and Haryana High Court vs. Hukam
Chand Vs. Presiding Officer, Industrial Tribunal-cum-Labour Court and
Anr.3.
12) Petitions are opposed by Mr. Adrekar, the learned counsel appearing
for the heirs of Respondent No.1. He would submit that this is an
unfortunate case where the first Respondent was incapacitated after
suffering injuries on account of accident occurring during the course of his
employment. That the first Respondent was engaged to function as
Gardner and there was no reason for him to climb the coconut tree unless
instructed to do so by the Petitioner. That the plea of the first Respondent
climbing the coconut tree on his own was raised merely as an afterthought
to escape the consequences of accident suffered by the workman while
performing duties. That if at all the first Respondent was to climb the
coconut tree on his own, Petitioner would have taken some action against
him or lodged an FIR, which is admittedly not done. This would clearly
indicate that the act of climbing coconut tree was performed as a part of
the duty by the first Respondent. That concurrent findings are recorded by
Labour Court and Industrial Court in the first round of litigation and it
would not be appropriate for this Court to interfere in the same in exercise
of jurisdiction under Article 227 of the Constitution of India. That first
1 2008 I CLR 864
2AIR Online 2021 Bom 1760
3 2004 1 CLR 34
___Page No.9 of 16___
8 August 2024
Gayatri Shimpi 14-WP-7334-2011 (FC).docx
Respondent was a poor workman coming from lower strata of the Society,
who suffered immensely on account of acts of the Petitioner and his heirs
are required to be granted the benefits arising out of the orders passed by
the Labour Court and Industrial Court. That this Court cannot re-
appreciate the evidence, which has already appreciated by the Courts
below. The fact that first Respondent was admitted to ESI Hospital was
itself an admission of his status as workman. He would, therefore, submit
that the orders challenged in Writ Petition No.7856 of 2005 warrant no
interference.
13) So far as Writ Petition No.7334 of 2011 is concerned, Mr. Adrekar
would submit that the first Respondent has undoubtedly worked during
2006 till 2011 and, therefore, he must be paid wages in accordance with
settlements entered into by Petitioner with recognized Trade Union. That
it is discriminatory to pay paltry daily wages to the first Respondent while
other workmen performing same job were earning higher wages. That
since completion of 240 days of service during 2006 to 2011 is not even
disputed, relief of permanency granted by the Industrial Court does not
warrant any interference. Mr. Adrekar would pray for dismissal of both the
Petitions.
14) Rival contentions of parties now fall for consideration.
15) Respondent No.1 was initially engaged on daily wage basis on 1
September 1990. It appears that he was directed to perform duties of a
Gardner. He was being paid daily wages of Rs. 36 per day. Within 37 days
of his initial engagement, he fell down while claiming a coconut tree and
suffered injuries on 17 October 1990. The first Respondent claimed in his
evidence that he climbed the coconut tree as a part of performance of
___Page No.10 of 16___
8 August 2024
Gayatri Shimpi 14-WP-7334-2011 (FC).docx
duties and he was directed by the Supervisor to do so. It appears that he
sustained injuries to his backbone due to fall and was initially admitted in
Lokmanya Hospital, Pune. It appears that, an accident report was prepared
by Petitioner. After the incident, Petitioner treated that his employment
came to an end after suffering of accident by him on 17 October 1990.
However, witness Sudhir Phatak, Deputy Engineer of Manager (HRM)
deposed in his evidence while Respondent No.1 was undergoing treatment
in ESI Hospital, officers of Petitioner-Company visited in the hospital
time and again to ensure proper treatment to him. If the employment had
really come to an end on 17 February 1990 and if the accident was not at
all attributable to performance of duties, it becomes incomprehensible as
to why accident report was prepared and why Petitioner's officials kept on
visiting the first Respondent in ESI hospital where he apparently remained
admitted. Since first Respondent was performing job of a gardener, it is
quite likely that climing on the tree was a part of his duties.
16) The Labour Court has computed the entire period from 17 October
1990 to 31 July 1991 towards duty for the purpose of computing the
period of 240 days of service. However, no evidence was produced on
record to demonstrate continuous hospitalization of the first Respondent
during 17 October 1990 to 31 July 1991. In fact, the Labour Court itself
has recorded that 'it is observed that no doubt that the admission paper of
the hospital not on record, but witness No.2 deposed that being old case
papers they could not be preserved'. Furthermore, the witnesses produced
by Respondent No.1 also did not support the case of continuous
hospitalization. In fact, Dr. Umakant P. Wani of ESI Hospital, though
initially stated in the evidence that the first Respondent was under his
medical treatment from 17 October 1990 to 31 July 1991, he did admit
that some of the papers were missing. He further admitted that the first
___Page No.11 of 16___
8 August 2024
Gayatri Shimpi 14-WP-7334-2011 (FC).docx
Respondent was admitted in hospital on 9 April 1991 and that he was
discharged of 17 May 1991. Thus, there is no concrete evidence on record
to indicate continuous hospitalization of the first Respondent for a long
period from 17 October 1990 to 31 July 1991.
17) Mr. Salkar has relied upon Judgment of Punjab and Haryana High
Court in Hukam Chand (supra) in support of his contention that periods
spent by the workman in hospital cannot be considered for determining
240 days of service. The Punjab and Haryana High Court as held in
paragraph No. 14 & 15 of the Judgment as under :-
14. The Labour Court has come to the conclusion that the period spent by
the petitioner in the ESI Hospital cannot be taken into account for working out
the continuous length of service. Counsel for respondent No.2 has supported
the aforesaid finding by relying on the judgment of the Supreme Court in the
case of Buckingham and Carnatic Company Ltd. (supra). While considering the
provisions of Section 73 of the Employees' State Insurance Act, the Supreme
Court held that the object of the Clause is to put a sort of a moratorium against
all punitive actions during the pendency of the employee's illness. In other
words, if the employee is ill and he has received sickness benefit for such illness,
during that period of illness, no punitive action can be taken against him.
Thereafter, the Supreme Court has further held as follows:-
".....There is another aspect of this question to which it is necessary to refer.
Section 73(1) prohibits the employer from dismissing, discharging, reducing
or otherwise punishing an employee. This seems to suggest that what is
prohibited is some positive action on the part of the employer, such as an
order passed by him either dismissing, discharging or reducing or punishing
the employee. Where termination of the employee's services follows
automatically either from a contract or from a standing order by virtue of the
employee's absence without leave for the specified period, such termination
is not the result of any positive act or order on the part of the employers, and
so, to such a termination the prohibition contained in S.73(1) would be
inapplicable..."
15. That being the legal position the period spent by the workman in the ESI
Hospital between 8.12.1994 and 4.9.1995 cannot be added to the number of days the
workman had worked during the preceding year. Learned Counsel for respondent no.2
has also relied on the judgment of the Supreme Court in the case of Escorts Ltd.
(supra) Therein, the workman had also not completed 240 days of service. It was also
case of the Management that the termination of the service of the workman does not
amount to retrenchment in view of Clause (bb) of Section 2(oo) of the Act, because
the said termination of the services of the workman was effected in accordance with
the terms of employer of the workman. In that case, the workman had actually worked
for 214 days. The plea of the Management was accepted and it was held that since the
___Page No.12 of 16___
8 August 2024
Gayatri Shimpi 14-WP-7334-2011 (FC).docx
termination of the services was in accordance with the contract of service, the
provisions of section 25-F of the Act would not be applicable. The Labour Court also
took into consideration the law laid down by the Supreme Court in the case of Birla
VXL Ltd. (supra) in coming to the conclusion that the petitioner was not entitled to
the protection of Section 25-F of the Act. The Labour Court also relied on a Division
Bench judgment of this Court in the case of Om Parkash (supra). The Labour Court
has noticed that the workman had worked for two days in October, 1994, 14 days in
November, 1994 and 7 days in December 1994. He was receiving treatment in the ESI
Hospital from 8.12.1994 till 3.9.1995. Therefore, clear that the workman had only
worked 40 ½ days. It is, therefore, clear that the workman had only worked 40 ½ days
in the preceding year from October, 1994 to September, 1995. Therefore, no relief
could have been given to the workman under the Act.
18) At the same time, it cannot be ignored altogether that the first
Respondent has suffered serious injuries to his back and though he may
not have bene continuously hospitalized from 17 October 1990 to 31 July
1991, it is possible that he was required to take prolonged medical
treatment and was in a position to work. The fact that, he was required to
be admitted again in the hospital on 9 April 1991 till 17 May 1991 in fact
buttresses the fact that injuries suffered by him were of serious nature and
required prolonged medical treatment.
19) The Labour Court has granted the relief of reinstatement with 50%
back wages. Admittedly, the first Respondent was offered job by letters
dated 5 April 2006 and 13 April 2006. This would mean that he was out
of job from 17 October 1990 till April 2006 for which period, 50% back
wages were awarded by the Labour Court. The last drawn wages by the
first Respondent were only Rs.38 per month. In Complaint ULP No.54 of
2007, the Industrial Court has computed the length of service of the first
Respondent without prejudice to pendency of Writ Petition No. 7856 of
2005 and has granted the benefit of permanency as well as payment of
wages arising out of various settlements. The first Respondent retired from
service immediately after the Judgment dated 18 April 2011 and he has
passed away during pendency of the Petitions on 25 April 2021.
___Page No.13 of 16___
8 August 2024
Gayatri Shimpi 14-WP-7334-2011 (FC).docx
20) Mr. Salkar has relied upon Judgment of Single Judge of this Court
in Hemant Babruvahan Parchake (supra) in support of his contention that
even if termination is found to be illegal in respect of a daily rated
workman, relief of reinstatement cannot always be a consequential remedy.
Considering the facts of the present case, where the first Respondent had
worked hardly for 37 days with the Petitioner, the Labour Court ought not
to have granted the relief of reinstatement. In fact, grant of relief of
reinstatement has resulted further litigation in the form of Complaint ULP
No.54 of 2007 claiming the relief of permanency and wages as per
settlements. If Labour Court was to award lumpsum compensation to the
first Respondent in the first round of litigation, further litigation on the
issues of permanency and wages as per settlement could not have been
avoided.
21) Since, it is held that the Labour Court ought to have awarded
lumpsum compensation to the first Respondent considering only 37 days
of service rendered by him, together with the fact that the first Respondent
worked between 2006 and 2011 and earned wages, and that he has passed
away on 25 April 2021 it would be appropriate that the family of the
deceased workman is awarded lumpsum compensation. Considering the
nature of directions that are being issued, it is not necessary to deal with
the Judgment of the Apex Court cited by the Mr. Salkar in Hindustan
Petroleum Corporation which deals with the issue of distinction between
the concepts of 'regularization' and 'permanency'.
22) As observed above, petitioner had deposited Rs.20,000/- towards
back wages in the Industrial Court in the first round of litigation. At the
time of admission of Writ Petition No.7856 of 2005, this Court permitted
___Page No.14 of 16___
8 August 2024
Gayatri Shimpi 14-WP-7334-2011 (FC).docx
first Respondent to withdraw the said amount subject to the final orders
passed in the Petition. It appears that after order dated 21 November
2005, first Respondent withdrew the said amount (along with interest)
and the amount withdrawn by him is approximately to the tune of
Rs.64,000/-. Thus, sometime in the year 2005 the first Respondent has
already received Rs. 64,000/-. Additionally, he has drawn wages from
2016 to 2011. Considering this position, award of further amount of Rs.
4,00,000/- to the heirs of first Respondent would meet the ends of justice.
23) I accordingly proceed to pass the following order:
(i) Judgment and Order dated 15 February 2005 passed by Labour
Court, Pune in Complaint ULP No.30 of 1992, order dated 21
October 2005 passed by Industrial Court in Revision ULP
No.29 of 2005 and Judgment and Order dated 18 April 2011
passed by Industrial Court in Complaint ULP No.54 of 2007
are modified by directing that the first Respondent is entitled to
be paid lumpsum compensation of Rs. 4,00,000 towards full and
final settlement of all his claims arising out of his service with
the Petitioner. This compensation of Rs. 4,00,000 would be over
and above the amount deposited by the Petitioner in the
Industrial Court and withdrawn by the first Respondent.
(ii) The Petitioner shall pay compensation of Rs. 4,00,000 to
Respondent No. 1A to 1D by drawing a Demand Draft in the
name of Respondent No.1A (Jzaria Sudam Wathare).
(iii) Over and above the lumpsum compensation so awarded,
Respondent Nos. 1A to 1D shall not be entitled to claim any
further service or retirement related benefits in respect of the
workman from Petitioner.
___Page No.15 of 16___
8 August 2024
Gayatri Shimpi 14-WP-7334-2011 (FC).docx
24) With the above directions, both the Writ Petitions are disposed of.
[SANDEEP V. MARNE, J.]
___Page No.16 of 16___
8 August 2024
