Bombay High Court
Shri. Kiran Manohar Yeralkar And Anr vs M/S. Sterling Roadlines Pvt. Ltd. And ... on 2 January, 2024
Author: Amit Borkar
Bench: Amit Borkar
2024:BHC-AS:25
21-wp9079-2016.doc
AGK
IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY
CIVIL APPELLATE JURISDICTION
WRIT PETITION NO.9079 OF 2016
Kiran Manohar Yeralkar & Anr. ... Petitioners
V/s.
Sterling Roadlines Pvt. Ltd. & Ors. ... Respondents
Mr. Mahesh Devlekar for the petitioner.
Mr. Sahil Saiyed for respondent Nos.2a & 4.
CORAM : AMIT BORKAR, J.
DATED : JANUARY 2, 2024
P.C.:
1. By the impugned order, the Third Labour Court has rejected
application under Section 33-C(2) of the Industrial Disputes Act,
1947 seeking wages, yearly increment at Rs.50/- per year, bonus
and leave encashment from 14 May 1994.
2. According to the applicants, they are employees of opponent
NO.1 as accounts assistant and accounts clerk. Opponents Nos.2
and 3 are Managing Director and Joint Managing Director where
as opponent No.4 is Executive Officer of opponent No.1. As the
opponents failed to pay wages and increment, the applicants filed
Complaint (ULP) No.1005 of 1989 claiming annual increments
from 1987 to 1990. The Industrial Court directed opponents to pay
annual increments with earned wages with interest at the rate of
12% per annum.
21-wp9079-2016.doc
3. As the opponents failed to pay as per the directions of the
Industrial Court, the applicants filed Application (ULP) No.28 of
1991 which was allowed and recovery certificate was issued for
Rs.46,605.75/-. The said order attained finality.
4. The applicants thereafter filed Application (IDA) No.550 of
1995 for recovery of arrears of increments from April 1990 to July
1993 and other benefits. By order dated 20 September 2004, the
opponents were directed to pay applicants amount of
Rs.1,26,572/- and Rs.1,16,460/-. Accordingly, recovery certificate
was issued on 31 January 2005.
5. The applicants thereafter filed present application seeking
yearly increment, bonus and leave encashment from 14 May 1994
onward.
6. The legal representatives of respondent No.2 have contested
the application contending that the legal representatives are not
liable for payment of company's dues. The Labour Court by the
impugned order dismissed the application.
7. On perusal of the record and the impugned judgment, it
appears that no fault can be found in rejection of application
against opponent Nos.2 and 3 are concerned. Having considered
Section 18 quoted by the Labour Court in paragraph 14, in my
opinion, the legal representatives of opponent No.2 cannot be
made liable for company's dues.
8. However, on perusal of paragraphs 22 and 23, it appears that
the Labour Court has dismissed the application against opponent
No.1/company mainly on the ground that there is no evidence
21-wp9079-2016.doc
about wages produced by the applicants. If there is no material
produced by the applicants, the Labour Court could have arrived at
an appropriate conclusion based on the facts and figures
mentioned in Complaint (ULP) No.826 of 1994 and Application
(IDA) No.550 of 1995. It is, therefore, necessary that the order in
relation to respondent No.1 needs to be set aside and the Labour
Court need to be directed to decide the application afresh to
adjudicate liability of opponent No.1. Hence, following order:
a) The impugned order to the extent it dismissed
Application against respondent No.1 is quashed and set
aside;
b) Application (IDA) No.198 of 2005 is restored to the file
of the Tenth Labour Court, Mumbai;
c) The Tenth Labour Court, Mumbai shall adjudicate the
liability of opponent No.1 in accordance with law;
d) Rest of the order dated 28 April 2016 passed by the
Tenth Labour Court, Mumbai is confirmed as against legal
heirs of opponent Nos.2 and 3;
9. The writ petition stands disposed of in above terms. No
costs.
(AMIT BORKAR, J.)
