Bombay High Court
Reliance Industries Ltd vs Jeevan Daniel Waghmare on 4 September, 2024
Neeta Sawant STM-9486-200.docx
IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY
CIVIL APPELLATE JURISDICTION
WRIT PETITION NO. 9486 OF 2003
RELIANCE INDUSTRIES LTD. } ..Petitioner
: Versus :
Jeevan Daniel Waghmare, since
Deceased, through His Heir and
Legal Representative, Smt. Vimal
Jeevan Waghmare } ..Respondent
_____________________________________________________________
Mr. Gaurav Thakur and Ms. Aditi Kambli i/by. A.S. Dayal &
Associates, for the Petitioner.
_______________________________________________________________________
CORAM : SANDEEP V. MARNE, J.
Dated : 4 September 2024.
P.C. :
1) Office has suo-moto placed the above petition on board
for speaking to the minutes of the order dated 4 July 2024.
2) The error pointed out is with regard to the reference of
the order as 'ORAL JUDGMENT' instead of 'P.C.' The order be
referred as 'P.C.' instead of 'ORAL JUDGMENT' in the copy
uploaded on the High Court website. Correction be carried out
without disturbing the rest of the order and be read accordingly.
[SANDEEP V. MARNE, J.]
___Page No.1 of 4___
4 September 2024
Neeta Sawant STM-9486-200.docx
IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY
CIVIL APPELLATE JURISDICTION
WRIT PETITION NO. 9486 OF 2003
RELIANCE INDUSTRIES LTD.
MIDC Industrial Area, Patalganga,
P.O. Rasayani, Dist. Raigad } ....Petitioner
: Versus :
Jeevan Daniel Waghmare, since Deceased
Through his Heir and Legal Representative
Smt. Vimal Jeevan Waghmare,
C-5-5/1, CIDCO Colony, Sector-18
New Panvel-410206, Taluka-Nanvel District }....Respondent
__________________________________________________
Ms. Melani D'souza with Mr. Gaurav Thakur, Ms. Aditi Kamble i/by. A.S.
Dayal & Associates, for the Petitioner.
Ms. Hemangi Dattatray Pathare, Legal Aid Counsel for the Respondent.
__________________________________________________
CORAM : SANDEEP V. MARNE, J.
Dated : 4 July 2024.
P.C. :
1) The Petitioner-employer has filed this petition challenging the
Judgment and Order dated 18 September 2003 passed by the Member,
Industrial Court, Thane allowing the Revision filed by the Respondent-
___Page No.2 of 4___
4 September 2024
Neeta Sawant STM-9486-200.docx
employee and setting aside the order dated 18 May 2002 passed by the
Labour Court, Thane refusing to restore Complaint (ULP) No. 232/1989
which was dismissed for non-prosecution on 29 October 1998. Thus, the
limited challenge raised in the present petition is about the Industrial Court
restoring the complaint filed by the Respondent-employee for its decision on
merits. On this limited issue, the petition is pending since the year 2003. It
appears that during the pendency of the petition, the Respondent-employee
has passed away and his wife is brought on record as his legal representative.
2) I have heard Ms. D'souza, the learned counsel appearing for
the Petitioner and Ms. Pathare, the learned counsel appearing for the
Respondent.
3) Considering the limited controversy involved in the present
petition and particularly considering the fact that the Respondent-employee
has passed away, in my view, no purpose would be served by letting the
Labour Court decide Complaint (ULP) No. 232/1989 on merits. It appears
that the Respondent-employee was dismissed from service on the charge of
absence from service. In my view therefore ends of justice would meet if the
wife of the Respondent-employee is paid lumpsum compensation rather than
deciding the petition on merits. Accordingly, the Writ Petition is disposed of
with direction to the Petitioner to pay lumpsum compensation of
Rs.10,00,000/- towards full and final settlement of the claim of the employee
in respect of his dismissal on 15 April 1989. It is clarified that beyond the
lumpsum compensation so awarded, the Respondent shall not be entitled for
any further benefit in respect of the employment with the Petitioner. The
___Page No.3 of 4___
4 September 2024
Neeta Sawant STM-9486-200.docx
amount of compensation shall be paid by the Petitioner to the Respondent
within 8 weeks from today. With the above directions, the Writ Petition is
disposed of.
4) Ms. D'souza submits that the Respondent-employee's wife is
occupying Company's flat. In my view, the issue of eviction of the
Respondent from the Company's flat was neither the subject matter before
the Labour Court or the Industrial Court nor in the present petition.
Therefore, it would be open for the Petitioner to take necessary steps for
eviction of the Respondent from the said flat.
[SANDEEP V. MARNE, J.]
Note : Correction is carried out in the cause-title only pursuant to speaking to the minutes
order dated 4 September 2024.
Digitally
signed by
NEETA
NEETA SHAILESH
SHAILESH SAWANT
SAWANT Date:
2024.09.04
13:41:57
+0530
___Page No.4 of 4___
4 September 2024
