Bombay High Court
Rajarambapu Patil Sahakari Sakhar ... vs Nitin Vishwasrao Barwade on 10 March, 2025
2025:BHC-AS:11346
Megha 44_wp_13642_2024_fc.docx
IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY
CIVIL APPELLATE JURISDICTION
WRIT PETITION NO. 13642 OF 2024
Rajarambapu Patil Sahakari Sakhar
Karkhana Limited ...Petitioner
V/s.
Nitin Vishwasrao Barwade ...Respondent
______________
Mr. Sarthak Diwan for the Petitioner.
Mr. Nitin A. Kulkarni for Respondent.
______________
CORAM: SANDEEP V. MARNE, J.
Judgment reserved on: 28 February 2025.
Judgment pronounced on: 10 March 2025.
Judgment:
1) The Petitioner has challenged this Petition challenging
the judgment and order dated 20 July 2024 passed by the
Member, Industrial Court, Sangli dismissing the cross-revision
applications filed by the employer and employee challenging the
judgment and order dated 29 February 2024 passed by the
Judge, Labour Court, Sangli. The Labour Court, while partly
Digitally
signed by
MEGHA
allowing Complaint (ULP) No.62 of 2015, had set aside the
MEGHA SHREEDHAR
SHREEDHAR PARAB
PARAB Date:
2025.03.11
15:08:07
+0530
discharge order dated 14 August 2015 and directed the Petitioner
-employer to reinstate the Respondent -employee with continuity
10 March 2025
Megha 44_wp_13642_2024_fc.docx
of service and 50% backwages. On account of dismissal of cross
revisions filed by the employer and employee, the ultimate order
under challenge is that of Labour Court directing reinstatement
w.e.f. 14 August 2015 with continuity and 50% backwages.
2) Respondent was appointed on the post of Clerk in the
Petitioner-sugar factory on 14 February 1997. He filed Complaint
(ULP) No.62 of 2015 alleging that he was illegally discharged
from service by order dated 14 August 2015 by showing as if his
request for voluntary retirement was accepted. He has
accordingly filed Complaint for reinstatement in service with
backwages. The Complaint was opposed by Petitioner-employer
by filing written statement raising a plea that Respondent -
employee had tendered application for voluntary retirement.
Later the written statement was amended relying on application
for voluntary statement dated 4 November 2014. Petitioner
claimed that Respondent was relieved from service by accepting
his request for voluntary retirement. Both the parties led
evidence in support of their respective pleas. After considering
the pleadings, documentary and oral evidence, the Labour Court
proceeded to allow the Complaint partly by holding that
discharge order dated 14 August 2015 was illegal and the same
was set aside. The Labour Court directed Petitioner-employer to
reinstate the Respondent in its original post with continuity of
service and 50% backwages during the intervening period.
10 March 2025
Megha 44_wp_13642_2024_fc.docx
3) Petitioner filed Revision Application (ULP) No.5 of 2024
challenging Labour Court's order dated 29 February 2024. The
Respondent-employee also filed Revision (ULP) No.6 of 2024 to
the extent of denial of 50% backwages. The Industrial Court
dismissed both the Revisions by judgment and order dated 20
July 2024 and has thus confirmed the decision of the Labour
Court. Aggrieved by the orders passed by the Labour Court and
Industrial Court, only Petitioner-employer has filed the present
Petition.
4) I have heard Mr. Diwan, the learned counsel appearing
for the Petitioner and Mr. Kulkarni, the learned counsel
appearing for the Respondent-workman. I have also gone
through the findings recorded by the Labour Court and the
Industrial Court as well as records of the case filed alongwith the
Petition and with the affidavit-in-reply.
5) Petitioner has heavily relied upon letter dated 4
November 2014 addressed by the Respondent to the ex-Minister
and ex-director of the sugar factory. The letter dated 4 November
2014 reads thus:-
दि .4-11-2014
प्रति ,
मा. आ. श्री . जयं राव पाटील
माजी ग्रामदिवकास मंत्री व मार्ग र्शक संचालक ,
राजारामबापू पाटील सहकारी साखर कारखाना लिल . राजारामनर्गर,
ा. वाळवा, जिज . सांर्गली .
अज ार : दिन ीन दिवश्वासराव बारवाडे
मु . पो . शिर्शर्गांव ा. वाळवा ' जिज . सांर्गली.
दिवषय : स्वेच्छादिनवृत्ती दिमळणेबाब .
10 March 2025
Megha 44_wp_13642_2024_fc.docx
सन्माननीय साहेब,
आपल्या साखर कारखान्या सन 1997 पासून सेवे आहे - या सेवा काळा सवसामान्य सेवा -
सुदिवधा सुद्धा मला दिमळाल्या नाही . त्यामुळे नाईलाजाने दि . 2-12-2009 रोजी नुकसानभरपाई
दिमळणेसाठी दिवनं ी अज आपणास दि ला.
स र अजावर आपण दि . 23-1-2011 रोजी मा. चेअरमनसाहेब व मा. कायकारी संचालकसो यांचेर्शी
चचा करून आ ेर्श दि ला. रीही प्रत्यक्ष काहीही कायवाही झालीच नाही.
यानं र दि . 4-3-2014 रोजी नुकसानभरपाईसह सेवामुक्त करणेचा अज आपणास दि ला. याबाब ही
कायवाही झाली नाही म्हणून दि . 12-7-2014 रोजी confidential अज दि ला.
कारखाना १७ वष + मुंबई ६ वषA असा २३ वषाचा काळ र्गेला .
साहेब, माझ्या आयुष्याचा प्रश्न आहे. म्हणून योग्य मोब ला दिमळाल्यास स्वेच्छादिनवृत्ती घेण्याची इच्छा
आहे.
री माझ्या स्वेच्छादिनवृत्तीस मंजुरी द्यावी दिह दिवनं ी.
धन्यवा ,
कळावे ,
आपला नम्र,
दिन ीन दिवश्वासराव बारवाडे मु.पो. शिर्शर्गांव
6) According to Petitioner, there were series of letters
addressed by the Respondent and the letter dated 4 November
2014 was in continuation of the said correspondence. It appears
that the Petitioner did not initially rely upon letter dated 4
November 2014 in its written statement and introduced the
theory of tendering voluntary retirement request by the
Respondent on 4 November 2014 by amending the written
statement. Otherwise, the initial case of the Petitioner was that
Respondent had tendered resignation on 9 June 2015, which was
accepted by the Petitioner. Labour Court has refused to believe
genuineness of the letter dated 9 June 2015. I am in agreement
with the findings recorded by the Labour Court that the
Petitioner was not able to prove tendering of letter dated 9 June
2015 by the Respondent. In fact, the said letter dated 9 June
10 March 2025
Megha 44_wp_13642_2024_fc.docx
2015 was not even produced alongwith the Petition and the same
is brought on record by the Respondent with affidavit-in-reply.
The Respondent has also placed on record copy of unamended
written statement filed by the Petitioner before Labour Court in
paragraph 5.5 whereof, Petitioner pleaded as under:-
5.5 ...The Karkhana respectfully submits that the
Complainant of his own accord opted to tender his application
seeking voluntary retirement from employment dated 9 th June
2015 to the Karkhana. ...
7) This Court does not appreciate the conduct of the
Petitioner in relying on document dated 9 June 2015 before the
Labour Court, on which no reliance is placed in the present
Petition. Memo of the Petition nowhere makes any reference to
the alleged letter dated 9 June 2015. What is relied on in the
present Petition is only letter dated 4 November 2014. The very
fact that the Petitioner initially sought to rely upon alleged letter
dated 9 June 2015 shows that their initial stand was about
discharge of the Respondent from service based on request for
retirement on 9 June 2015. It is only after realising that the
Petitioner was not in a position to prove its claim of tendering of
retirement letter dated 9 June 2015 that it apparently improved
upon its case and relied upon letter dated 4 November 2014.
This conduct on the part of the Petitioner would clearly disentitle
it from invoking extraordinary jurisdiction of this Court under
Article 227 of the Constitution of India. Even if Petitioner's
conduct in taking conflicting stands with regard to letters dated
4 November 2014 and 9 June 2015 is to be momentarily ignored,
10 March 2025
Megha 44_wp_13642_2024_fc.docx
it becomes difficult to believe that Respondent had opted for
unconditional voluntary retirement vide letter dated 4 November
2014. The said letter was not addressed to the Managing
Director, who had authority to grant retirement or accept
resignation. The same was apparently addressed to the ex-
Minister and ex-director of the sugar factory. The contents of the
letter clearly shows that Respondent expressed desire to opt for
retirement only in the event of payment of compensation.
Apparently, Respondent had grouse about non-payment of due
salary and allowances during the period of his service and was
repeatedly corresponding with the Petitioner-sugar factory for
payments. Respondent apparently showed willingness to retire
from services of the Petitioner in the event of he being paid
compensation towards due amount of salary and allowances.
There is nothing on record to indicate that any amount was
agreed to be paid or actually paid to the Respondent towards
compensation, which was the condition expressed in the letter
dated 4 November 2014 for tendering of resignation. There is
nothing on record to indicate that the said condition was
withdrawn by the Respondent in any manner or that he opted for
unconditional voluntarily retirement. Finding of fact is recorded
that the alleged letter dated 9 June 2015 was never submitted by
the Respondent. It therefore becomes difficult to connect the
letter dated 4 November 2014 with the order of discharging the
Respondent from service passed on 14 August 2015. There is also
a long gap from letter dated 4 November 2014 and discharge
order dated 14 August 2015. I am therefore not inclined to
10 March 2025
Megha 44_wp_13642_2024_fc.docx
interfere in the concurrent findings recorded by the Labour and
the Industrial Court qua illegal discharge of the Respondent.
8) Having upheld the findings of the Labour and the
Industrial Court on the issue of discharge of the Respondent, the
next issue for consideration is nature of relief that can be granted
in favour of the Respondent in the facts and circumstances of the
present case. Respondent is out of service for more than 10 years
by now. His current age is apparently 54 years. There is
unsavory relationship between Petitioner and Respondent on
account of long litigation that has ensued for last 10 years. In my
view therefore, payment of lumpsum compensation to the
Respondent in lieu of reinstatement and backwages would meet
the ends of justice in the facts and circumstances of the present
case. The last drawn gross pay of the Petitioner was Rs.19,446/-
per month at the time of his discharge. The Labour Court has
awarded only 50% backwages and the same would be to the tune
of roughly Rs.12 lakhs by now. It has come in evidence that
Respondent has an agricultural land and he used to draw income
from crops cultivated thereon.
9) Considering the above facts, in my view payment of
lumpsum compensation of Rs.10,00,000/- to the Respondent in
lieu of reinstatement and backwages would be appropriate.
10) I accordingly proceed to pass the following order:-
10 March 2025
Megha 44_wp_13642_2024_fc.docx
(i) The judgment and order dated 29 February 2024
passed by the Labour Court, Sangli in Complaint
(ULP) No.62 of 2015 and judgment and order dated 20
July 2024 passed by the Industrial Court, Sangli in
Revision (ULP) Nos. 5 and 6 of 2024 are modified to
the extent that Respondent shall be entitled to receive
lumpsum compensation of Rs.10,00,000/- from the
Petitioner in lieu of reinstatement and backwages
towards full and final settlement of all his service
related claims from the Petitioner.
(ii) Beyond lumpsum compensation so awarded,
Respondent shall not be entitled to claim any further
benefits from the Petitioner.
(iii) Petitioner shall pay to the Respondent compensation
of Rs.10,00,000/- within a period of two months.
11) With the above directions, Petition is partly allowed and
disposed of. There shall be no orders as to costs.
[SANDEEP V. MARNE, J.]
10 March 2025
