[Cites 4, Cited by 0]
Bombay High Court
Venco Research And Breeding Farm ... vs Rashtriya Shramik Aghadi And Ors on 1 December, 2025
Author: Milind N. Jadhav
Bench: Milind N. Jadhav
2025:BHC-AS:52181-DB
WP.1418.2015.doc
Ajay
IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY
CIVIL APPELLATE JURISDICTION
WRIT PETITION NO. 1418 OF 2015
Venco Research and Breeding Farm Private
Limited .. Petitioner
Versus
Rashtriya Shramik Aghadi & Ors. .. Respondents
....................
Mr. J.P. Cama, Senior Advocate a/w Varun Rajiv Joshi & Mr.
Chetan Alai, Advocate for Petitioner.
Mrs. Smita Gaidhani a/w Dr. Rohini S. Pandit & Ms. Mrudula
Gargale Advocates for Respondent No.1
Mr. Hamid Mulla, AGP for State
....................
CORAM : MILIND N. JADHAV, J.
Reserved on : NOVEMBER 24, 2025.
Pronounced on : DECEMBER 01, 2025
JUDGMENT:
1. Heard Mr Cama, learned Advocate for Petitioners; Mrs.
Gaidhani learned Advocate for Respondent No.1 and Mr. Mulla, AGP
for State.
2. Present Petition is filed challenging impugned Award dated
22.04.2014 passed by the Labour Court in Reference (IDA) No.94 of
2005. Impugned Award is appended at Exhibit "Y' page 284 of
Petition.
3. Briefly stated, Petitioner is a Company duly incorporated
under the Companies Act, 1956 and runs several poultry farms
engaged in breeding, growing and hatching of eggs. Petitioner engaged
116 workmen in its farm at Village Sangavi, District Satara whose
1 of 27
WP.1418.2015.doc
contracts were governed under the Model Standing Order (for short
"Standing Order") framed under Industrial Disputes Act, 1947 (for
short "ID Act") to conduct aforementioned activities. Respondent No. 1
- Union espouses the cause of workmen in the present lis.
3.1. On and from 09.08.2004, 91 workmen of Petitioner -
Company and another sister company being M/s Venkys (India) Pvt.
Limited conducted and continued a hunger strike at Venkateshwar
House, Pune keeping them absent from work for 63 days. On
28.08.2004, Petitioner - Company issued letters to these workmen
seeking explanation for absence from work and called upon them to
return to their duties, however no response was received.
3.2. In April 2005, workmen attempted to rejoin their duties,
however they were not allowed to rejoin. Respondent No.1 - Union
issued demand letter dated 20.04.2005 to Petitioner - Company
seeking reinstatement of these workmen however no response was
received. On 06.05.2005, Respondent No. 1 - Union approached
Conciliation Officer seeking reinstatement of the workmen, however by
letter dated 15.07.2005 Union was informed that reinstatement was
not agreeable leading to failure report dated 29.07.2005 being
submitted to Additional Labour Commissioner, Pune.
3.3. On 13.09.2005, Additional Labour Commissioner, Pune
referred the dispute to Labour Court, Pune which was transferred to
2 of 27
WP.1418.2015.doc
Labour Court Satara bearing number Reference (IDA) No. 94 of 2005.
On 22.04.2014, Labour Court, Satara allowed the Reference and
directed Petitioner - Company to reinstate 12 workmen with continuity
of service and 1 workman was to be reinstated with continuity of
service with backwages. Being aggrieved with the Award of Labour
Court, Satara present Petition is filed. By Order dated 21.08.2025, the
Hon'ble Chief Justice directed this Court to hear and decided the
Petition finally.
4. Mr. Cama, learned Senior Advocate appears alongwith Mr.
Joshi, for Petitioners. He would submit that Award dated 22.04.2014
passed by Labour Court Satara is bad in law, that it is passed without
appreciation of evidence on record and without due consideration of
law, that it is therefore perverse and deserves to be set aside. He would
submit that Petitioner - Company runs poultry farms and hatcheries at
District Satara and Ahmednagar and employs 116 workmen to carry
out various duties at its poultry farms. He would submit that some of
the workmen are permanent while some are engaged casual labourers
and they are currently posted at Petitioner - Company's Satara farm.
He would submit that on 09.08.2004, about 91 workmen from
Petitioner - Company and 48 workmen from another sister company
called Venky's (India) Ltd, Bhigwan, Pune went on a flash strike
without any prior intimation or notice to the Company / their
respective employers. He would submit that reason for the strike was
3 of 27
WP.1418.2015.doc
for meeting of demands put forth by Respondent No.1 - Union but
when reference was made and dispute was referred to Labour Court, in
the evidence filed by the Union a palpably false ground was pleaded
about a firing incident and a shot fired from the firearm of a security
guard employed by the Company.
4.1. He would submit that Union in order to gain sympathy
pleaded that at the behest of Management of the Company orders were
given to its security guard to fire upon the Members of the Union and
commit murder. On this ground Police complaint was also filed by the
Union. He would submit that on 04.10.2003 during Dussera puja at
Petitioner's farm at Vadgaon, Taluka Khandala, District Satara while
cleaning the licensed firearm accidentally fired the gun shot which hit
the roof of the security cabin and its sharpnel backfired and pierced the
workers who were entering from the gate leading to injuries to 10
workmen. He would submit that injured workmen were administered
medical treatment and discharged. He would submit that a criminal
case of alleged attempt to murder was filed, tried by the Court by
returning affirmative findings the security guard and Company's
Manager were exonerated / acquitted.
4.2. He would submit that the place and farm where this
incident occurred is admittedly at a distance of 7 kilometers from
Village Vadgaon. He would submit that the incident occurred 10
4 of 27
WP.1418.2015.doc
months prior to the date of file. He would submit that Respondent
No.1 - Union spread false rumors that Petitioner - Company
terminated 25 workmen and transferred other workmen. He would
rather submit that Petitioner - Company did not terminate any
workman and rumors spread by Respondent No. 1 - Union were
mischievous with an intention to cause prejudice and mislead judicial
authorities. He would submit that Company released a press statement
on 14.08.2004 that they had never terminated any workmen, which
statement stands on record.
4.3. He would submit that all 48 workmen of the sister company
i.e. Venkys (India) Ltd Bhigwan, Pune returned back to duty, forthwith
however workmen of Petitioner - Company's farm at Village Sangvi
continued the strike. He would submit that various letters were
addressed to workmen of the farm at Village Vadgaon calling upon
them to return back to duty however no response was received. He
would submit that workmen abandoned their duties despite Petitioner
- Company issuing show cause notice to them to return to their duties.
He would submit that despite these workmen remaining absent,
Petitioner - Company did not terminate their services, in fact no action
was taken pursuant to issuance of show cause notices issued to them.
Hence there was no termination.
4.4. He would submit that in April 2005, Respondent no. 1 -
5 of 27
WP.1418.2015.doc
Union raised a Charter of Demands seeking reinstatement of the
allegedly terminated workmen. In response thereto Petitioner -
Company addressed letter dated 23.06.2005 stating that these
workmen remained absent since 09.08.2004 (date of strike) and
Petitioner had addressed letters to them by RPAD which were received
by them calling upon these workmen to return to their work and
Petitioner - Company expressly denied that their services were
terminated by the Company.
4.5. He would submit that dispute that between Petitioner -
Company and Respondent No. 1 - Union was submitted to Conciliation
and discussions took place, however due to resolute stand of both
parties Conciliation failed. He would submit that Conciliation Officer
filed failure report dated 29.07.2005 wherein he erroneously observed
that Petitioner - Corporation dismissed / terminated these workmen as
they remained absent from work without leave or reason. He would
submit that this erroneous finding proved fatal to Petitioner -
Company's case which influenced the Labour Court, Satara to pass the
impugned Award.
4.6. He would submit that Respondent No. 1 - Union filed
Statement of Claim and Petitioner - Company filed Written Statement
in the proceedings before Labour Court. He would submit that these
workmen went on hunger strike on 09.08.2024 and Petitioner -
6 of 27
WP.1418.2015.doc
Company issued show cause notices to them to rejoin back to work but
they failed to do so, hence leading to abandonment of work by them.
He would vehemently submit that despite these workmen nor
Respondent No. 1 - Union not replying to the show causes notice,
Petitioner - Company did not terminate their services instead
requested them to repeatedly return back to work.
4.7. He would submit that two workmen namely Mr. Yashwant
Anandrao Bhosle and Mr. Sanotsh Kisan Bhargude filed Affidavits of
Evidence on behalf of all workmen, they were duly cross examined by
Petitioner - Company. He would point out that in their cross
examination, they deposed as under :- (i) In cross examination Mr.
Yashwant Anandrao Bhosle admitted that he cannot produce any proof
to show that he filed his evidence on behalf of other workmen, (ii) that
the workmen were not terminated neither was the subject of protest
relating to termination; (iii) that the workmen did not issue any
demand to Petitioner - Company seeking their reinstatement and
admitted that he himself willfully remained absent from duty. He
would submit that Petitioner - Company led evidence of Mr.
Chandrakant Ganapatrao Shahane, Dilip V. Kolte and Dr. Game who
were duly cross-examined by Respondent No. 1 - Union wherein they
expressly denied that Petitioner - Company terminated the services of
the workmen and stated that the workmen may return to work if they
so desire.
7 of 27
WP.1418.2015.doc
4.8. He would submit that Petitioner - Company filed application
before the Labour Court to amend its written statement however,
Labour Court dismissed the application and Petitioner - Company filed
Writ Petition before this Court challenging that order. He would submit
that this Court (Coram: K.K. Tated, J) during court hearing referred
the parties to mediation. He would submit that during mediation,
Petitioner - Company agreed and proposed to reinstate these
workmen, provide free accommodation to them, pay their 15 days
wages on the last drawn wages for each completed year in service and
disburse gratuity and Provident Fund to them, but Respondent No. 1 -
Union declined the proposal and mediation failed. He would submit
that this Court allowed the Writ Petition and Petitioner - Company
amended its Written Statement.
4.9. He would submit that Petitioner - Company repeatedly
offered these workmen several opportunities to rejoin work, firstly
before the Conciliation Officer, secondly before Labour Court, thirdly
during mediation and fourthly even at stage of cross examination, to
return back to work, however they remained adamant and hence after
6 years of keeping their posts vacant, Petitioner - Company was left
with no other option but to fill their vacant posts at Vadgaon, Satara as
their absence had subsequently affected the Company's business over
the years.
8 of 27
WP.1418.2015.doc
4.10. He would submit that the Labour Court however based its
findings entirely on the Conciliation Officer's erroneous observation
that Petitioner - Company had terminated these workmen's services
after they failed to return to work which is factually incorrect. He
would however submit that there is sufficient material on record to
show that Petitioner - Company was always ready and willing to
accept these workmen back in work but the same was not considered
by the Labour Court. He would submit that the Labour Court also
returned an erroneous finding that these workmen were recalled but
not allowed to rejoin. He would submit that Respondent No.1 - Union
placed no evidence on record to support this erroneous finding and in
fact cross examination of Respondent No.1 - Union's witnesses is
contrary to this finding. Hence he would persuade the Court to allow
the Petition.
5. PER CONTRA, Ms. Gaidhani, learned Advocate appearing on
behalf of Respondent No. 1 - Union has vehemently opposed the Writ
Petition and would submit that the impugned Award dated 22.04.2014
is tenable in law, that it suffers from no infirmities, that it is passed
with complete application of mind while considering the evidence on
record and it deserved to be upheld. She would submit that
Respondent No. 1 - Union represented and espoused the cause of 44
workmen of Petitioner - Company. She would submit that the
workmen whose names are mentioned at Annexure 'A' to the Award
9 of 27
WP.1418.2015.doc
dated 22.04.2014 were working with Petitioner - Company for more
than 8 years. She would submit that on 22.02.2003, Respondent No. 1
- Union raised a demand, however Petitioner - Company did not
respond. She would submit that on 25.11.2003, Respondent - Union
approached Additional Labour Commissioner for mediation however
Petitioner - Company did not even attend the mediation.
5.1. She would submit that a security guard employed by the
Petitioner - Company during a protest opened fire from his licensed
firearm and injured 13 workmen. She would submit that on
09.08.2004, post the firing incident, these workmen staged a hunger
strike and it was so brought out in the evidence of Mr. Yashwant
Anandrao Bhosle and Mr. Sanotsh Kisan Bhargude being Respondent
No. 1 - Union's witnesses. She would submit that on 10.09.2004, the
workmen called off the hunger strike and reported to work on
29.09.2004 and 30.09.2004, however they were not allowed to return
back to work and this was also brought out in the evidence of
Respondent No. 1 - Union's witnesses.
5.2. She would submit that Respondent No. 1 - Union through its
Chairman submitted numerous written complaints to the Additional
Labour Commissioner, Pune however no response was received. She
would submit that Respondent No.1 - Union then issued letter dated
20.04.2005 requesting Petitioner - Company to allow these 44
10 of 27
WP.1418.2015.doc
workmen to join back in service, however no response was received.
Hence the Union approached the Conciliation Officer under ID Act vide
referral letter 06.05.2005. She would submit that on 15.07.2005
Petitioner - Company stated that these workmen remained absent
without permission hence, question of their reinstatement with
continuity in service and full back wages together with all
consequential benefits did not arise. She would submit that after due
discussion with both the parties, no settlement could be arrived at and
Conciliation Officer submitted a failure report dated 29.07.2005 to the
Additional Labour Commissioner, Pune. She would submit that on
13.09.2005, the Additional Labour Commissioner, Pune referred the
dispute to Labour Court, Pune. She would submit that in the Demand
Letter dated 20.04.2005 issued to Petitioner - Company it was stated
that services of these workmen were orally terminated by Petitioner -
Company in September, 2004. She would submit that oral termination
amounts to retrenchment under Section 2 (oo) of the ID Act hence
such termination is in violation of Section 25F of the ID Act as no
notice was issued nor any retrenchment compensation was paid to
these workmen. She would argue that no Seniority List as per Rule 81
of the Industrial Disputes (Bombay) Rules, 1957 was displayed prior to
termination and hence, their termination was illegal, arbitrary, and
void ab-initio. Further, she would submit that admittedly no
chargesheet was issued nor inquiry conducted against these workmen
11 of 27
WP.1418.2015.doc
before termination of their services. She would submit that all efforts
of these workmen to join the company proved futile as they were not
allowed to enter the premises of Petitioner - Company.
5.3. She would submit that Respondent No. 1 - Union led
evidence of two witnesses viz. Shri. Yashwant Anandrao Bhosale and
Santosh Kisan Bhargude who were thoroughly cross examined. She
would submit that Shri. Yashwant Anandrao Bhosale in his cross
examination stated that these workmen did not receive Show Cause
Notices except 3 ladies (workers) had who received them. Mr. Santosh
Kisan Bhargude in his evidence specifically denied the suggestion that
he resigned from Respondent No.1 - Union and in fact denied his
signature on the resignation letter as well as other documents put to
him in cross examination. She would submit that Mr. Bhargude further
stated in his cross examination that he was not allowed to join work on
09.08.2004.
5.4. She would submit that Petitioner - Company's Assistant
General Manager (Personnel) Shri. Chandrakant Ganpatrao Shahane
filed his Affidavit of evidence and was duly cross examined by the
Union. She would submit that in his cross examination he admitted
that 13 workmen were injured in the firing by their security guard and
that the strike was called off on 10.09.2004. She would submit that he
also deposed that most of the Show Cause Notices were returned back
12 of 27
WP.1418.2015.doc
and further admitted that except the Show Cause Notices, Petitioner -
Company did not issue any other letter to these workmen calling upon
them to return to duty. She would submit that Petitioner - Company's
second witness Dr Dilip Kolte, admitted in his cross examination that
he was not aware if these workmen had returned back to duty on
29.09.2004 and 30.09.2004 and he stated that Show Cause Notices
were issued to all 44 workmen. She would submit that both these
witnesses deposed that they were not aware as to whether these
workmen had conveyed their readiness to join back during the
pendency of the proceedings. She would submit that similar evidence
was given by Shri Game who was the third witness of Petitioner -
Company. She would submit that Shri Game stated that he was not
aware whether Petitioner - Company had any proof about some of
these workmen being casual workmen. She would submit that only
after due consideration all issues, learned Labour Court vide Award
dated 22.04.2014 held that Respondent No. 1 - Union had proved that
Petitioner - Company violated Section 25F of the ID Act and had
terminated the services of these workmen illegally and that the said
workmen did not abandon their services. She would submit that the
Reference was partially allowed in respect of 12 workmen only and it
was held that the said workmen were eligible for reinstatement with
continuity in service and company should provide reinstatement and
continuity of service to those 12 workmen and as regards one other
13 of 27
WP.1418.2015.doc
workman named Santosh Kisan Bhargude, the Labour Court held that
that he was eligible for reinstatement, continuity of service and
payment of full back wages.
5.5. She would submit that Award dated 22.04.2014 is
challenged by Petitioner - Company in present Petition and despite of
passage of more than 11 years, present Petition stands pending and
neither is there any stay on operation of Award dated 22.04.2014 and
the Award is not implemented till date. She would submit that grave
prejudice and irreparable loss is caused to workmen since they are out
of work since 2004. She would submit that two workmen out of these
12 have expired in the interregnum and five workmen have already
attained the age of superannuation.
5.6. She would submit that these 12 workmen who are granted
relief by the Learned Labour Court had written various letters to
Petitioner Company to allow them to resume work, however despite
receipt of letters no action was taken by Petitioner to comply with the
Award of the Labour Court. She would submit that the offer now been
made after 21 years agreeing reinstatement is nothing but an eye wash
only with a view to deprive the workmen from getting their lawful
dues. She would submit that except bare words, Petitioner - Company
did not produce any cogent material to show that new workmen were
recruited in place of these workmen involved in the dispute and as per
14 of 27
WP.1418.2015.doc
information of the Union their posts are still vacant since most of the
workmen freshly engaged have been employed on casual/contract
basis. She would submit that the Labour Court rightly held that except
alleged Show Cause Notice there was no other action taken by
Petitioner - Company calling upon these workmen to return back to
duty and that except for 3 ladies (workmen) Show Cause Notices were
not even served upon the other workmen, hence there was no question
of them responding to the Show Cause Notices.
5.7. She would submit that a bare perusal of the Show cause
Notices would show that it stated that in case if the concerned
workman did not return back to his duty, then disciplinary action
would be invoked against him leading to enquiry, but admittedly there
was no such action /inquiry /conduct of disciplinary proceedings
undertaken in the present case neither was compensation paid to any
of these workmen over the years. Hence she would submit that action
of the company amounted to retrenchment and present Petition
deserved to be dismissed and the workmen deserved to be
compensated adequately for the immense loss caused to them
deliberately and intentionally by the Petitioner - Company.
6. I have heard Mr. Cama, Senior Advocate for the Petitioner
Company and Ms. Gaidhani learned Advocate for the Respondent No.1
- Union at the Bar representing the Company and the Union and
15 of 27
WP.1418.2015.doc
perused the record of the case with their able assistance. Submissions
made by both the learned Advocates have received due consideration
of the Court.
7. At the outset, moot question to be answered in the present
Petition are whether workmen who were employed by Petitioner -
Company were terminated in violation of ID Act and whether the
impugned award deserves to be upheld? Admittedly, Petitioner -
Company is running several poultry farms engaged in breeding
livestock birds, poultry, growing and hatching of eggs etc. On
09.08.2004, workmen of Petitioner - Company employed in several
poultry farms in Pune and Satara staged hunger strike outside
headquarters of Petitioner - Company and remained absent from work
thereafter. However 91 workmen participated in the hunger strike
were from the poultry farm at Village Sangvi District Satara. Most of
the workmen who returned back were allowed to join duties. It is
Respondent No. 1 - Union's case that since the workmen remained
absent from work, they were orally terminated and refused entry to
Petitioner - Company's farm when they returned back and they could
not carry out their duties. However it is Petitioner - Company's case
that the 12 workmen herein were never terminated and that over the
course of litigation and even before the Conciliation Officer, Petitioner
- Company repeatedly requested the workmen to join work and
perform their duties.
16 of 27
WP.1418.2015.doc
8. It is seen that Petitioner - Company and Respondent Union
attempted to amicably resolve their disputes before Conciliation Officer
as well as a mediator appointed by this Court however both attempts
at amicable settlement failed. It is seen that Conciliation Officer
submitted his Failed Report dated 29.07.2005 which is at Exhibit 'D'
page No. 47 of Petition. It is seen that, in the Conciliation Report the
Conciliation Officer records a finding that workmen left their duty
without permission or reason for which they were served with letters
issued by Petitioner - Company sent by RPAD, however the workmen
did not return back to work neither did they give any reason for their
absence, hence Petitioner - Company dismissed them while at the
same time denying violation of Section 25F of ID Act. Petitioner -
Company has vehemently argue that this finding was erroneous.
9. Record clearly shows that these 12 workmen are not been
terminated from service by the Company. Since they remained absent
due to strike they were issued show-cause notice. After receiving the
show-cause notices, they did not report back to duty. The strike took
place some time in August - 2004. According to workmen they
reported back on duty to rejoin their services in April - 2005.
Petitioner - Company naturally in the meantime could not afford to
keep their positions vacant and recruited additional labour / workmen
so that the business of the Company did not get affected.
17 of 27
WP.1418.2015.doc
10. Though Mr. Cama has argued that because of the strike call
given by the workmen, the production Industry of Petitioner -
Company severely got affected thereby leading to financial losses.
There is another issue which deserves attention that is borne out from
the record itself. The workmen were employed in the poultry farm
situated in village - Sangvi, District - Satara. They went on a strike in
August - 2004. The strike was undertaken in front of Petitioner -
Company's Head Office in Pune. It is an admitted position that the
strike pertained to negotiation of demands of the Union with the
Company but when some of the workmen working in the poultry farm
at village - Sangvi, District - Satara did not rejoin and attempted to
rejoin services almost after six months, the Company did not allow to
let them in. At first instance it appears that the Company was at fault
but that does not appear to be the case. All along consistently after the
Reference was made and even before me, it is the case of the workmen
that the strike was called due to a firing incident which had occurred
in the poultry farm where these workmen were working. This reason
and cause of action given by workmen in the Reference proceedings
while leading evidence is on the face of record false. The Union only
desired to evoke sympathy by referring to the firing incident. It is seen
from the record that in the poultry farm at village - Sangvi where these
workmen were employed, no such firing incident whatsoever had
taken place and this is the admitted position. The alleged firing
18 of 27
WP.1418.2015.doc
incident pertained to an incident which happened ten months ago
(October 2003) before the date of strike on the day of Dusshera in the
year 2003. It was infact not a firing incident at all. The security guard
of the Petitioner - Company posted at the Company's poultry farm at
village - Vadgaon, District - Satara was cleaning his weapon for the
purpose of Dusshera puja and accidentally a bullet got fired which
pierced the metal roof of the security cabin of the watchman. The
accidental firing led to shrapnel flying out in the air and workmen of
that poultry farm who at that time were entering through the farm
gate, got injured with the shrapnel piercing them. The Company
provided immediate medical attention to all the injured workmen but
unfortunately a First Information Report was lodged by the Union
alleging that on instructions of Assistant General Manager of the
poultry farm situated in village - Vadgaon, District - Satara, the
security personnel / guards were directed to shoot the workmen and
commit murder i.e. fire upon the workmen working in that farm.
Investigation was conducted in the criminal case lodged which went
the entire distance of trial.
11. All above facts are clearly documented in the detailed order
of exoneration and acquittal passed by the Criminal Court while
discharging the Company's personnel from any act of attempt to
murder. The Union gave a strike ten months after this incident and
pursuant to the strike after almost six months when these 12 workmen
19 of 27
WP.1418.2015.doc
decided to rejoin the Company they were not permitted and hence
Union, they raised a dispute. Record shows that even before the
Conciliation Officer, the workmen were directed to report to duty but
they refused until the Union's demands were met.
12. What transpires thereafter is crucial. In the pleadings filed
before the Labour Court, the Union has pleaded that the cause of
action of the strike which had taken place in August - 2004 was on
account of the firing incident on the workmen which was on the face of
record, a false assertion and ground for the Union to go on strike. It is
seen that the alleged firing incident which is narrated hereinabove and
is the admitted position occurred at Village Vadgaon during Dussehra
puja and had no nexus whatsoever with the strike call given by the
Union 10 months after the alleged incident thereby paralysing the
operations of the Petitioner - Company. Not only it did not have any
nexus but by virtue of the strike call, the operations of the Company
had come at a complete stand-still and the Company suffered severe
financial loss. The Company production line, inter alia, pertaining to its
birds and livestock could not suffered in the meanwhile.
13. The Company addressed show-cause notices which have
been admitted by the witnesses of the Union in evidence as some of the
workmen having received them. Admittedly, thereafter neither any
enquiry took place nor termination occurred. For the past more than
20 of 27
WP.1418.2015.doc
20 years, the position has prevailed as it is. Petitioner - Company
employs hundreds of workmen, Petitioner - Company's motive to
terminate these 12 workmen can be ascertained on the basis of
material on record. Neither there is any proof placed on record or
material shown to the Court by the Union that the workmen were
terminated from service. Once that is the position, merely because the
Petitioner - Company has referred to and used the reinstatement in its
amended written statement cannot bind the Company to having held
that the workmen were terminated by the Company.
14. It is clearly seen that the Union filed a false complaint
against the Company pursuant to the alleged firing incident which had
no nexus to the strike call given ten months later but after a period of
one year when pleadings and evidence was led before the Labour
Court in Reference proceedings the Union painted a picture about the
strike call having been given due to the alleged firing incident which
was a false case made out by the Union. When such false cases are
foisted on the Company by the Union, the Union should not and
cannot expect any assistance from the Court of law. The Union has
miserably failed to show that services of these 12 workmen were
terminated by the Company as alleged by them. There is not an iota of
evidence on record to suggest that the workmen were terminated by
the Company.
21 of 27
WP.1418.2015.doc
15. Resultantly, what has happened is that out of 13 workmen
before me five of the workmen have in the interregnum surpassed the
age of superannuation. Out of the remaining six, it is seen that it is
merely the oral evidence of the office bearer of the Union which states
that no workmen received any show-cause notice from the Company
but he admitted that three out of them did receive the show-cause
notices. However, the Company in its evidence and right from
inception has maintained a consistent stand that after issuance of the
show-cause notices they did not take any further steps to conduct
enquiry or terminate the services of the workmen to whom the show
cause notices were issued.
16. Record shows that show-cause notices were issued to 44
workmen out of the 91 workmen who went on strike. Rest all
workmen returned back to work. Reference to Labour Court was made
only in respect of 12 workmen and learned Labour Court held that
they were eligible for reinstatement with continuity in service and the
Company should provide reinstatement to these 12 workmen. In so far
the 13th workman is concerned, namely Mr. Santosh Kisan Bhargude,
he deposed on behalf of the workmen / Union and in is the office
bearer of the Union, in his case the Labour Court held that he was
eligible for the reinstatement, continuity of service and payment of full
backwages.
22 of 27
WP.1418.2015.doc
17. In the above facts and circumstances merely because Mr.
Santosh Bhargude deposed on behalf of the Union he cannot be given
a better or preferential deal than the other 12 workmen without
having worked and hence he cannot be entitled to full backwages.
That finding of the learned Labour Court holding Mr. Santosh
Bhargude eligible and entitled for payment of full backwages in the
aforesaid facts deserves to be interfered with and set aside. There is
absolutely no foundation whatsoever to single out the case of Mr.
Santosh Bhargude for such preferential treatment of awarding him
payment of full backwages to him neither there is any foundational
evidence which can lead the Court to award such a relief to only one of
the workmen. Therefore the said direction and declaration of the
Labour Court holding that Mr. Santosh Bhargude would be entitled to
payment of full backwages is quashed and set aside. Out of the
remaining 12 workmen, 5 workmen have crossed superannuation and
two have demised in the interregnum. That leaves only six workmen
i.e. 5 + 1 (Santosh Bhargude) who have not attained age of
superannuation as yet.
18. Though Petitioner - Company has in the alternate argued
that they would be ready and willing if the Court feels so to allow
these workmen to rejoin at the Company's Ahmednagar farm but even
those talks failed and the Union decided to argue the present Petition
on merits. The issue of reinstatement of remaining workmen has been
23 of 27
WP.1418.2015.doc
outrightly rejected by the Union as an eye-wash.
19. Mr. Cama after arguing the entire matter informed the Court
that if at all the six workmen are to be reinstated, Petitioner -
Company is ready and willing to reinstate them and provide them
accommodation only at its Ahmednagar poultry farm where vacancies
exist and not at their original place of work at village Vadgaon but he
has categorical instructions to submit that no vacancies exist and also
to oppose the relief of continuity in service offered to all workmen and
the backwages offered to Mr. Santosh Bhargude. However both the
parties have held to their stand and all attempts at settlement even
before me before failed even before me deciding the matter failed on
merits. In view of the serious facts and circumstances of the present
case where the Union approached the Labour Court with unclean
hands by attempting to invoke sympathy of the Court by relying upon
the firing incident which had no nexus whatsoever with the issue at
hand and after considering the submissions made by Mr. Cama and
Ms. Gaidhani and in view of aforementioned observations and
findings, I am of the clear opinion that reinstatement of the 12
workmen directed by virtue of the impugned order deserves to be set
aside.
20. Record clearly indicates that originally 91 workmen who
worked at the poultry farm at village - Sangvi, District - Satara had
24 of 27
WP.1418.2015.doc
gone on a flash strike but almost all of them returned to work and it is
only some of the workmen who for the next six months did not return
to work.
21. In the facts of the present case in my opinion only because
the Petitioner - Company did not take any steps pursuant to issuance
of show-cause notice for effecting termination of the workmen, the
said workmen should be entitled to monetary relief as the Company
did not conduct any enquiry neither it terminated their services.
However I am not inclined and convinced to accept the reason given by
the learned Labour Court in arriving at that finding that these 13
workmen will be entitled to reinstatement and continuity of service.
Labour Court has failed to analyse the real cause of action while
passing the Award which led to the strike and ultimately after the
strike to the stalemate of reinstatement of these 13 workmen. The
timeline from the date of firing incident until the Reference was filed is
almost two years. The cause of action of the firing incident in the
Reference was merely pleaded to invoke sympathy of Court in favour
of the workmen and nothing else.
22. When the other workmen returned to work out of the 91
workmen who had gone on the flash strike the poultry farm at village -
Sangvi there was no reason for these 13 workmen not to return.
23. In view of the above observations and findings, the directions
25 of 27
WP.1418.2015.doc
contained in the impugned Reference Award passed by the learned
Labour Court directing reinstatement of the 13 workmen alongwith
award of full backwages to Santosh Bhargude, is not sustainable in law
at all and the same is required to be quashed and set aside. However,
since the Company did not take any further steps for effecting
termination of the workmen after following the due process of law, the
Company is also at fault. Hence I am inclined to direct the Company to
pay monetary compensation of Rs.7,50,000/- in lumpsum to each of
the 13 workmen. In so far as the 2 workmen who have expired, the
Company shall pay the compensation to their legal heirs by depositing
the said compensation in the Labour Court of Satara and Registrar of
Labour Court, Satara is directed to disburse the said compensation to
the legal heirs of the deceased workmen after ascertaining all details of
the legal heirs.
24. In so far as the five workmen who have passed the
superannuation age during the interregnum, the compensation of
Rs.7,50,000/- as directed to be paid to them shall be deposited by the
Company with the Labour Court, Satara and the Registrar, Labour
Court shall be responsible for disbursing the payment to them
immediately after the deposit is made.
25. The remaining six workmen including Santosh Bhargude
shall also be entitled to compensation of Rs.7,50,000/- each which
26 of 27
WP.1418.2015.doc
shall be deposited by the Petitioner - Company with the Labour Court,
Satara and the Registrar of the said Court shall verify and the pay the
compensation to these workmen. The deposit of the compensation as
directed above shall be made by the Petitioner - Company within a
period of four weeks from today for all 13 workmen and disbursement
of the compensation shall be made thereafter by the Registrar, Labour
Court forthwith after verifying all details of the workmen without any
delay and in any event within a period of 8 weeks from the date of
deposit of compensation.
26. In view of the above directions and to the extent of
directions given hereinabove, the impugned Award dated 22.04.2014
passed by the Labour Court in Reference (IDA) No.94 of 2005 stands
interfered with and modified to the above extent accordingly.
27. Writ Petition partly succeeds and is allowed in the above
terms. Liberty to apply.
28. Writ Petition is disposed.
[ MILIND N. JADHAV, J. ]
Ajay Digitally signed
by AJAY
AJAY TRAMBAK
TRAMBAK UGALMUGALE
UGALMUGALE Date: 2025.12.01
13:33:28 +0530
27 of 27
