Bombay High Court
Premraj Budha Patil Deceased Through ... vs The State Of Maharashtra Through Its ... on 28 August, 2024
Author: Ravindra V. Ghuge
Bench: Ravindra V. Ghuge
2024:BHC-AUG:20012
*1* 903wp114o24 grp
(Reportable)
IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY
BENCH AT AURANGABAD
WRIT PETITION NO. 12935 OF 2023
BHAGWAT NAGRAJ PATIL,
(Deceased through his L.Rs.)
BAYJABAI BHAGWAT PATIL,
Age : 72 years, Occu: Household,
R/o Vikhran, Tq.Erandol,
Dist. Jalgaon.
...PETITIONER
VERSUS
1. THE STATE OF MAHARASHTRA
Through its: Secretary,
Revenue and Forest Department,
Mantralaya Mumbai-32.
2. The Dy. Conservator of Forest,
Jalgaon Forest Division Jalgaon.
...RESPONDENTS
WITH
WRIT PETITION NO. 12940 OF 2023
NANA PANDIT PAWAR,
Age : 50 years, Occu: Nil,
R/o Lakh Post Khurd, A/P Nandra,
Tq.Pachora, Dist. Jalgaon.
...PETITIONER
VERSUS
1. THE STATE OF MAHARASHTRA
Through its: Secretary,
Revenue and Forest Department,
Mantralaya Mumbai-32.
*2* 903wp114o24 grp
2. The Dy. Conservator of Forest,
Jalgaon Forest Division Jalgaon.
...RESPONDENTS
WITH
WRIT PETITION NO. 12944 OF 2023
TUKARAM BHAGA PAWAR,
Age : 74 years, Occu: Nil,
R/o Padmalaya, Tq.Erandol,
Dist. Jalgaon.
...PETITIONER
VERSUS
1. THE STATE OF MAHARASHTRA
Through its: Secretary,
Revenue and Forest Department,
Mantralaya Mumbai-32.
2. The Dy. Conservator of Forest,
Jalgaon Forest Division Jalgaon.
...RESPONDENTS
WITH
WRIT PETITION NO. 12950 OF 2023
YUVRAJ MATORAJ THAKARE,
(Deceased through his L.Rs.)
KALABAI YUVRAJ THAKARE (BHIL),
Age : 51 years, Occu: Household,
R/o Kurhad (Kh.) Tq.Pachora,
Dist. Jalgaon.
...PETITIONER
VERSUS
1. THE STATE OF MAHARASHTRA
Through its: Secretary,
Revenue and Forest Department,
*3* 903wp114o24 grp
Mantralaya Mumbai-32.
2. The Dy. Conservator of Forest,
Jalgaon Forest Division Jalgaon.
...RESPONDENTS
WITH
WRIT PETITION NO. 12952 OF 2023
PRAKASH MAHADU PATIL,
Age : 72 years, Occu: Nil,
R/o Asankheda, Tq.Pachora,
Dist. Jalgaon.
...PETITIONER
VERSUS
1. THE STATE OF MAHARASHTRA
Through its: Secretary,
Revenue and Forest Department,
Mantralaya Mumbai-32.
2. The Dy. Conservator of Forest,
Jalgaon Forest Division Jalgaon.
...RESPONDENTS
WITH
WRIT PETITION NO. 12957 OF 2023
PREMRAJ BUDHA PATIL,
(deceased through his L.Rs.)
BEBABAI PREMRAJ PATIL,
Age : 72 years, Occu.: Household,
R/o Umarde, Erandol (Rural),
Tq.Erandol, Dist. Jalgaon.
...PETITIONER
VERSUS
1. THE STATE OF MAHARASHTRA
Through its: Secretary,
Revenue and Forest Department,
*4* 903wp114o24 grp
Mantralaya Mumbai-32.
2. The Dy. Conservator of Forest,
Jalgaon Forest Division Jalgaon.
...RESPONDENTS
WITH
WRIT PETITION NO. 114 OF 2024
GULAB BUDHAN PATEL,
(deceased through his L.Rs.)
Taj Bi Shekh Gulab Musalman
Age: 73 years, Occu. Nil,
R/o. Kurhad Bk. Kurhad Tq. Pachora,
Dist. Jalgaon-424202.
...PETITIONER
-VERSUS-
1. THE STATE OF MAHARASHTRA
Through its: Secretary,
Revenue and Forest Department,
Mantralaya Mumbai-32.
2. The Dy. Conservator of Forest,
Jalgaon Forest Division Jalgaon.
...RESPONDENTS
...
Shri Badribishan A. Darak, Advocate for the Petitioners.
Shri V.M. Kagne, AGP for Respondent Nos.1 and 2/State.
...
CORAM : RAVINDRA V. GHUGE
&
Y. G. KHOBRAGADE, JJ.
DATE :- 28th August, 2024
*5* 903wp114o24 grp
ORAL JUDGMENT (Per Ravindra V. Ghuge, J.):-
1. Rule. Rule is made returnable forthwith and heard
finally by the consent of the parties.
2. With the assistance of the learned Advocates, we
have gone through the petition paper book and the affidavit in
reply filed on behalf of the Deputy Conservator of Forest in each
of these matters.
3. Shri Pravin A., Deputy Conservator of Forest,
Jalgaon Forest Department, Jalgaon, is present in the Court and
has tendered the original file for our perusal. Though he is the
Respondent in these matters, an affidavit in reply on his behalf
has been filed by the Assistant Conservator of Forest, who does
not explain as to why Respondent No.2 has not filed the
affidavit. It is only stated that he is authorized by the Deputy
Conservator of Forest to file the affidavit.
4. The learned AGP Shri Kagne submits that the State
is Respondent No.1 and the Deputy Conservator of Forest is
*6* 903wp114o24 grp
Respondent No. 2. The Assistant Conservator of Forest has filed
the affidavit on behalf of both these parties. Such submission
cannot be countenanced.
FACTUAL BACKGROUND OF THESE CASES
5. The facts, as they emerge from the record, are
undisputed. Each of these Petitioners had approached the
Industrial Court, either at Nashik or at Jalgaon, by filing their
ULP Complaints under Section 28(1), read with Items 6, 9 and
10 of Schedule IV of the Maharashtra Recognition of Trade
Unions and Prevention of Unfair Labour Practices Act, 1971, (for
short, 'The MRTU and PULP Act'). It is also undisputed that
after the Industrial Court was established at Jalgaon, some of the
matters, which were filed in 1997, were transferred to Jalgaon
and were registered in 1999. It is also undisputed that all these
Complaints were partly allowed. It was declared by the Industrial
Court that the Forest Department had indulged in unfair labor
practices under Item 6 and 9 of Schedule IV of the MRTU and
PULP Act. Monetary benefits on the principle of 'Equal Wages
For Equal Work' were directed to be paid.
*7* 903wp114o24 grp
6. The Deputy Conservator of Forest, Jalgaon along
with the Range Forest Officer, preferred Writ Petition
No.1368/2005 (The State of Maharashtra and others vs.
Ramesh Narayan Patil) and other connected petitions before
the Single Judge Bench of this Court for challenging the
judgments of the Industrial Court. Keeping in view the law laid
down by the Honourable Supreme Court in Bangalore Water
and Sewerage Board vs. A. Rajappa and others, (1978) 2
SCC 213 and the judgment of this Court [Coram : A. S. Oka (as
His Lordship then was) and M. S. Sonak JJ.] in the matter of
Chief Conservator of Forest, Pune (T) and another vs.
Janabai Sonaba Sarpale, 2019 II CLR 28, it was declared by
the Single Judge, vide judgment dated 14.03.2022, that the Social
Forestry Department is an industry. The objection of the Forest
Department that the Complaints were not maintainable before the
Industrial Court, was negated.
7. It is also an admitted position that, neither did the
Forest Department prove before the Industrial Court that any of
these Employees were working under the Employment
Guarantee Scheme (EGS), nor could the Forest Department
*8* 903wp114o24 grp
establish before the Single Judge Bench that these workers were
working under EGS. Paragraph Nos.4, 5 and 6 of the judgment
of the Single Judge dated 14.03.2022 (supra), read thus:-
"4. The learned Advocate for the petitioner turns to his
second limb of submissions that all these
respondents were appointed as temporary Mazdoor
or Forest Guards and they were working under the
Employment Guarantee Scheme (EGS). He has
vehemently contended that this court has
consistently taken a view that workers working on
EGS cannot seek reinstatement, regular
employment or permanency in service. A specific
stand was taken in the written statement that these
workers are working under EGS.
5. I have perused the record available, with the
assistance of the learned Advocates for the
respective sides. It is obvious that the petitioner
has merely taken a stand that these workers were
working under EGS. However, no record has been
produced before the Labour Court. No documents
indicating that these workers were working under
the EGS have been produced.
6. It requires no debate that there are special Cells in
various Departments in the State of Maharashtra
to deal with EGS employees. A specific officer is
entrusted with handling the department of the EGS.
All EGS employees are issued with cards
indicating their identity and the fact that they are
working under EGS. Their payments are made
through the EGS funds. Their attendance and pay
register are maintained by the officer handling the
EGS Department. None of these documents were
produced before the labour court and as such the
labour court rightly concluded that, besides a mere
statement in written statement, there was no
evidence to support/substantiate the claim of the
petitioners that these respondents were working in
EGS."
8. It was further held in paragraph Nos. 7 to 10 of the
*9* 903wp114o24 grp
judgment dated 14.03.2022 (supra), as under:-
"7. Record reveals that these workers have been
working on daily wages for more than three
decades. Some joined in 1986 and some joined in
1988. Most of them have superannuated. The
impugned judgments have been delivered by the
Industrial Court, Jalgaon in 2003. Since these
matters were admitted, the respondent/original
complainants were continued in employment on
daily wages and have been kept away from the
benefits incidental and consequential to
regularization, since, this court stayed the
direction of the Industrial Court granting them
permanency.
8. In view of the above, I do not find that the
impugned judgment of the Industrial Court could
be termed as being perverse or erroneous. The
Industrial Court has rightly followed the law laid
down in the Chief Conservator of Forests and
another Vs Jagannath Maruti Kondhare reported
in (1996) 2 SCC 293 wherein it was directed that if
posts are not available, parity in wages on the
basis of the principle of "Equal pay for equal
wages", has to be followed.
9. In view of the above, these petitions are dismissed.
Rule is discharged.
10. Needless to state that the respondents would be
entitled to the benefits of difference in wages as
was directed by the Industrial Court. Considering
that these respondents have been working for more
than three decades and many of them have
superannuated, the petitioner-Deputy Conservator
of Forest Jalgaon Forest Division shall forward
the proposals of these respondents to the
appropriate authorities for considering grant of
regularization and a deemed date of
regularization. Such proposals shall be prepared
on or before 30-06-2022 and shall be forwarded to
the Principal Secretary Forest Department. Said
department shall consider these proposals as
expeditiously as possible and in any case on or
before 31-11-2022. The eligible candidates would
be granted deemed dates of regularization with all
*10* 903wp114o24 grp
monetary benefits incidental and consequential
thereto."
9. It is, thus, apparent that the Petitioners before us
were proved to be working for more than three decades. These
are concurrent findings of the Industrial Court as well as the
Single Judge Bench of this Court. It is in this backdrop that the
Single Judge Bench directed the Forest Department to forward
the proposals of these Petitioners for regularization, grant of
deemed date of regularization and the payment of regular pay-
scale/ arrears in the light of the law laid down by the Honourable
Supreme Court in Chief Conservator of Forest and another vs.
Jagannath Maruti Kondhare, (1996) 2 SCC 293.
ISSUES INVOLVED IN THESE CASES
10. The controversy in these matters begins at this stage.
Shri V.V.Hoshing, Deputy Conservator of Forest, Jalgaon Forest
Department, (hereinafter 'DCF'), submitted the proposal dated
25.06.2022, to the Conservator of Forest (Territorial), Dhule,
wherein, he has practically sat over the judgment of the Industrial
Tribunal as well as the judgment of the Single Judge Bench of
the High Court, by stating that 15 out of 16 proposals do not
*11* 903wp114o24 grp
deserve consideration since they never worked for 240 days in a
year and several of them worked under the Employment
Guarantee Scheme (EGS). Such report of the DCF is not only
unconscionable, but an attempt to over bear the conclusions of
the Industrial Court and the High Court. It is for this purpose that
we have reproduced the conclusions of the Single Judge Bench
herein above.
11. Though we are not taking this issue any further, it is
apparently an act of overreach by the DCF, which has the
trappings of a willful disobedience of the order of this Court. On
the basis of this tainted proposal, the Conservator of Forest
(Territorial), Dhule has forwarded the proposal to the Principal
Secretary, Forest and Revenue Department, State of Maharashtra.
Thereafter, the DCF informed each of these Petitioners with the
communication dated 01.05.2023, that regularization cannot be
granted to these Petitioners since they do not fulfill the
requirements of the Government Resolutions dated 31.01.1996
and 16.10.2012.
12. The learned AGP submits that in both these
*12* 903wp114o24 grp
Government Resolutions, it is provided that regularization would
not be granted if the criteria of completion of 240 days in any
scheme other than EGS, was not fulfilled by any of these
Petitioners. We are of the view that, when there are concurrent
findings that these Petitioners have continuously worked for 3
decades. The DCF has forwarded incorrect information to the
State. This is the reason why we have drawn the conclusion that
the Deputy Conservator of Forest, Jalgaon sat on the conclusions
of the Industrial Court and the Single Judge Bench despite
concurrent findings that these Petitioners were working
continuously for almost three decades.
13. We are pained to record that out of these Petitioners
before us, four have passed away and their legal heirs are on
record. Except one Petitioner, all have retired from service.
Reversing the clock for directing the Government to reconsider
their cases for regularization and grant the deemed dates of
regularization when many of these Petitioners have left this
world and some of the widows on record are almost 75 years of
age, would be an impracticable and cumbersome exercise.
Moreover, if further inappropriate orders are passed by the Forest
*13* 903wp114o24 grp
Department and the desired result, which was expected by the
two Courts which delivered judgments in these matters, is not
achieved, these Petitioners would have to continue with further
litigation.
CONCLUSIONS
14. It is in the above backdrop that the learned Advocate
for the Petitioners, submits on instructions, that in few cases, this
Court has granted Rs.1,00,000/- (One Lakh) compensation per
year of service put in by a daily wager working in the Forest
Department. He prays for adequate compensation to these
Petitioners in lieu of regularization, deemed date of
regularization, pension, gratuity and the outstanding difference of
wages payable on the principle of 'Equal Wages for Equal Work'
in the light of the judgment delivered in Jagannath Kondhare
(supra), which would be acceptable to these Petitioners.
15. We have perused the judgments delivered by the
Honourable Supreme Court in similar circumstances in (a)
Assistant Engineer, Rajasthan State Agriculture Marketing
Board, Sub-Division, Kota Vs. Mohanlal, 2013 LLR 1009, (b)
*14* 903wp114o24 grp
Assistant Engineer, Rajasthan Development Corporation and
another Vs. Gitam Singh, (2013) 5 SCC 136, (c) BSNL Vs. Man
Singh, (2012) 1 SCC 558, and (d) Jagbir Singh Vs. Haryana
State Agriculture Marketing Board, (2009) 15 SCC 327. The
compensation granted by the Honourable Supreme Court in these
matters was in between 2009 to 2013. It is more than 10 to 12
years that have passed by after the said quantification of
compensation.
16. Considering the above cited reports, we are of the
view that it would be impracticable to remit all these matters
back to the Government for reconsideration. As noted above,
further litigation cannot be ruled out. All these Petitioners,
commenced their litigation journey in 1997 and it is almost 27
years that they are in litigating in Courts. Many of them have
passed away. It is high time that we should give a quietus to this
litigation. We have taken into account these factors for
considering the request of the learned Advocate for the
Petitioners to grant lump sum compensation to these Petitioners/
legal heirs.
*15* 903wp114o24 grp
17. The learned AGP submits, on instructions, that the
Forest Department is in a financial stringency and they have no
funds to pay even difference of wages. The proposal for payment
of wages of difference is also pending.
18. Since the difference of pay-scale is also not paid to
these Petitioners and since there are concurrent findings that they
have worked for three decades, except the Petitioner (Nana
Pandit Pawar) in Writ Petition No.12940/2023, who has put in 2
decades, we conclude that the Forest Department/Respondent
No.1 herein shall pay lump sum compensation of Rs. 10,00,000/-
(Ten Lakhs) to these Petitioners (except Nana Pandit Pawar) or to
their legal heirs in case of death of the original Petitioners, in lieu
of regularization, gratuity, retiral benefits, the difference in
payment of salary, if not yet paid, etc..
19. These Writ Petitions are, therefore, partly
allowed in terms of the above conclusions. The amount of
Rs.10,00,000/- (Ten Lakhs) per Petitioner employee or his legal
heir in case of death of the original Petitioner, except the
Petitioner (Nana Pandit Pawar) in Writ Petition No.12940/2023,
*16* 903wp114o24 grp
shall be deposited in this Court, on or before 30.09.2024.
20. Insofar as Writ Petition No.12940/2023 filed by the
Petitioner Nana Pandit Pawar is concerned, he is 50 years of age.
The learned Advocate for the Petitioner submits that Nana Pandit
Pawar is also nearing his retirement and presently, is not allotted
any work. He was also before the Industrial Court and the Single
Judge Bench of this Court and has succeeded in litigation. It can
be construed that he has worked for than 20 years. He is also
willing to accept lump sum compensation and give a quietus to
this litigation.
21. Hence, in the case Nana Pandit Pawar in Writ
Petition No.12940/2023, we are granting a lump sum
compensation of Rs.7,50,000/- (Seven Lakhs Fifty Thousands).
This amount shall also be deposited in this Court on or before
30.09.2024.
22. We would not grant extension of time for depositing
the amount. The Petitioners or the legal representative before us
are permitted to withdraw the said amounts without conditions,
*17* 903wp114o24 grp
under due identification by the learned Advocate for the
Petitioners. A copy of their Adhar Card and/or Election
Commission Voter Identity Card, duly attested by the concerned
Petitioner/ legal heir shall be placed on record along with the
application for withdrawal of the amount.
23. Even if the Model Code of Conduct is declared, it
would not be an impediment for implementing this order and for
depositing the amounts in this Court.
24. Rule is made partly absolute in terms of the above
directions.
kps (Y. G. KHOBRAGADE, J.) (RAVINDRA V. GHUGE, J.)
