Bombay High Court
M/S J Fibre Corporation vs Maruti Harishchandra Amrute And Ors on 5 March, 2025
2025:BHC-AS:10312
judgment in wp 10454-24.docx
IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY
CIVIL APPELLATE JURISDICTION
WRIT PETITION NO.10454 OF 2024
M/s J Fibre Corporation ... Petitioner
V/s.
Shri Maruti Harishchandra Amrute and ors. ... Respondents
______________
Mr. Shailesh K. More, Advocate for the Petitioner.
Mr. R. S. Pawar, Advocate for the State.
Mr. Maruti H. Amrute, Advocate for Respondent No.1 in-person is present.
_______________
CORAM : SANDEEP V. MARNE, J.
RESERVED ON : 27th FEBRUARY 2025
PRONOUNCED ON : 05th MARCH 2025
JUDGMENT:
1. The Petition is filed by the employer challenging the Award dated
2nd November, 2022 passed by the Presiding Officer, 3 rd Labour Court,
Thane, in Reference (IDA) No.246 of 2018. The Labour Court has directed
Petitioner to reinstate the Respondent No.1-workman with full backwages
and continuity of service with effect from 17th May 2018.
2. Petitioner is a partnership firm and engaged in manufacturing of non-
woven fabric, nylon, monofilament yarn and drinking straw. Respondent
PRIYA No.1 was employed as Shift Supervisor with the Petitioner since 1 st April
RAJESH
SOPARKAR
2011. According to Petitioner, the nature of duties of the Respondent No.1
judgment in wp 10454-24.docx
were to supervise production, marking of attendance of workmen, writing
of Supervisor report in daily record book etc. That he was drawing gross
salary of Rs.12,650/- and therefore, not a 'workman' within the meaning of
Section 2(s) of the Industrial Dispute Act, 1947. It is Petitioner's case that
due to prevailing market conditions resulting in lesser demand, Petitioner
decided to operate only one out of two manufacturing machines and
informed the Respondent No.1-workman on 17 th May 2018 that one shift
supervisor shall look after 2nd and 3rd shifts, whereas the 1st shift production
would be supervised by the production executive herself. The services of the
Respondent No.1 were not required on account of cost cutting and being a
junior most as compared to other two supervisors, the Petitioner-
Management decided to terminate the services of Respondent No.1 vide
letter dated 17th May 2018. Respondent No.1 refused to acknowledge the
termination letter and the enclosed cheque towards one month notice
period. On 19th May 2018, Respondent No.1-workman accepted the
termination letter but returned the cheque of notice pay. Respondent No.1
sent demand letter for his reinstatement and sought intervention of the
Conciliation Officer. The Conciliation Officer made a failure report. The
Petitioner decided to make payment of Rs. 53,428/- towards retrenchment
compensation together with 10% interest and credited the said amount in
the account of the Respondent No.1. Additionally, Petitioner paid amount of
Rs.68,817/- towards gratuity and notice pay in the account of the
Respondent No.1.
3. The Deputy Commissioner of Labour, Thane referred the dispute
relating to termination, which was registered as Reference (IDA) No.246 of
2018. Respondent No.1 filed Statement of Claim, which was resisted by the
judgment in wp 10454-24.docx
Petitioner by filing written statement. Parties led evidence in support of the
respective claims. The Labour Court declared award dated 2 nd November
2022 directing reinstatement of the Respondent No.1 with effect from
17th May, 2018 with full backwages and continuity of service. It appears that
Petitioner did not immediately challenge the award dated 2 nd November,
2022 and attempted to settle the matter with the Respondent No.1. In the
meantime, Tahasildar attempted to recover amount of Rs.7,23,450/- from
the Petitioner towards the execution of the Award.
4. In the above background, Petitioner has filed the present Petition
challenging the award dated 2nd November 2022. This Court issued notice
to Respondent No.1 by order dated 7 th August 2024 and stayed execution of
the Award subject to the condition of Petitioner depositing 50% wages for
the period from 17th May 2018 to 24th June, 2021. Accordingly, the
Petitioner has deposited amount of Rs.2,35,828/- towards 50% backwages
for the period from 17th May, 2018 to 24th June, 2021.
5. I have heard Mr. More, the learned counsel appearing for Petitioner
and Respondent No.1, who has appeared in person. I have also gone
through the findings recorded by the Labour Court in its Award dated
2nd November 2022 as well as the relevant records of the case filed
alongwith the petition.
6. The Labour Court has directed reinstatement of Respondent No.1 and
according to the Petitioner, Respondent No.1 has already crossed the age of
retirement and therefore, there is no question of his reinstatement. It
appears that before the Labour Court, PAN Card of Respondent No.1 was
judgment in wp 10454-24.docx
produced reflecting his date of birth as 24th June 1961. However, the Labour
Court held that the first party had reported before the Court that 'the
second party has already gone beyond the age of 58 years at the time of
filing evidence affidavit as his date of birth is 24 th June 1961. Though it is
so, there being no clear evidence as to superannuation age the order in
respect of reinstatement has to follow the above findings'. The Labour
Court, in my view, has grossly erred in directing reinstatement of
Respondent No.1. Even if the age of retirement is assumed as 60 years,
Respondent No.1 has attained the age of 60 years on 24 th June 2021. In
that view of the matter, the Labour Court could not have directed
reinstatement in Award passed on 2 nd November 2022. The direction for
reinstatement of Respondent No.1 is thus clearly erroneous.
7. As a matter of fact, it is the case of Petitioner-employer that the age of
retirement is actually 58 years, and that Respondent No.1 would have
otherwise retired on 24th June, 2019. However, no evidence was led about
age of retirement being 58 years. In fact, the memo of the petition begins
with an assertion that Respondent No.1 reached the age of superannuation
on 24th June, 2021. Since the Petitioner has admitted in petition that the
date of retirement of Respondent No.1 is 24 th June, 2021 it is not necessary
to go into dispute about the exact age of superannuation.
8. Having held that Respondent No.1 crossed the age of retirement on
24th June, 2021, he cannot be reinstated and the only issue that arises is in
respect of his monetary entitlements during the period from 17 th May, 2018,
when he was terminated till 24th June, 2021.
judgment in wp 10454-24.docx
9. Mr. More has strenuously submitted before me that the due procedure
was followed while retrenching the services of the Respondent No.1-
workman. It is seen that retrenchment compensation was not offered at the
time of issuance of termination letter dated 17 th May 2018. The same was
directly credited in the bank account of the Respondent No.1 in November
2018 i.e. after six months from the date of termination. Petitioner-
Management did not produce seniority list before the Labour Court to
demonstrate that the Respondent No.1 was a junior most Supervisor for
being selected for retrenchment due to lesser production work. Therefore, I
do not find any serious flaw in the findings recorded by the Labour Court
holding the termination to be illegal.
10. So far as the issue of status of Respondent No.1 as 'workman' within
the meaning of Section 2(s) of the Industrial Disputes Act is concerned,
Labour Court has conducted factual inquiry into the duties and
responsibilities performed by the Respondent No.1. It is held that
predominant work of the Respondent No.1 was of technical nature. It is
further held that entries made in the reports written by the Respondent
No.1 could at best be treated as clerical work and not supervisory work. The
finding of fact about status of the Respondent No.1 is well supported by the
evidence on record and I am not inclined to interfere in the same.
11. The termination of Respondent No.1 is thus found to be erroneous
and he could not be reinstated in service on account of crossing the age of
retirement on 24th June, 2021. The Petitioner-Management led evidence
before the Labour Court that the sales of the company had gone down
drastically and that it was forced to terminate the services of the
judgment in wp 10454-24.docx
Respondent No.1 on account of non-availability of sufficient work. If the
prescribed procedure was to be followed while effecting retrenchment, the
Labour Court would not have interfered in the same. The reference has
been answered in the affirmative on account of failure on the part of the
Petitioner to follow due procedure of law while effecting retrenchment of
the Respondent No.1. Otherwise the Labour Court has not found any flaw in
the case put forth by Petitioner about loss of production work. In my view,
payment of lumpsum compensation instead of backwages would meet ends
of justice in the facts and circumstances of the present case.
12. The next issue would be about the exact amount that can be awarded
to the Respondent No.1-workman towards lumpsum compensation. There is
no dispute to the position that the Petitioner has deposited in the account of
Respondent No.1 the following amounts :-
Sr.No. Particulars Amount in Rs.
1. Retrenchment compensation 53,428/-
2. Salary for 7 days on May, 2018 5,931/-
3. Leave Salary from January, 2017 to May, 13,890/-
4. Notice pay 12,650/-
5. Gratuity 36,346/-
Total 1,22,245/-
13. As observed above, this Court has directed Petitioner to deposit 50%
backwages from the date of termination (17 th May, 2018) till date of
attaining his superannuation (24th June, 2021). Accordingly, Petitioner has
deposited amount of Rs.2,35,828/- in this Court. In my view, the said
deposited amount of Rs.2,35,828/- plus amount already credited in the
judgment in wp 10454-24.docx
account of Respondent No.1 of Rs.1,22,245/-, total amount of
Rs. 3,58,073/- can be awarded as the lumpsum compensation for loss of job
for the Respondent No.1 for about three years from 17 th May, 2018 to
24th June, 2021.
14. Accordingly, I proceed to pass the following order:-
(i) Award dated 2nd November 2022 passed by 3 rd Labour Court,
Thane is modified to the extent Respondent No.1 shall be
entitled to lumpsum compensation of Rs.3,58,073/- in lieu of
reinstatement and backwages.
(ii) Beyond the amount of Rs. 3,58,073/-, Respondent No.1 shall
not be entitled to any service related benefits from the
Petitioner.
(iii) Respondent No.1 is permitted to withdraw the entire amount
deposited in this Court alongwith accrued interest.
(iv) Since the order of the Labour Court is modified, the Tahasildar
shall forthwith remove the seal/lock put on Petitioner's
premises.
15. With the above directions, the Writ Petition is partly allowed and
disposed of. There shall be no order as to costs.
(SANDEEP V. MARNE, J.)
