Bombay High Court
Junior Engineer Maha. Jivan ... vs Dattatreya Digambar Gawande And Others on 16 October, 2025
wp41.2024.odt 1/4
IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY
NAGPUR BENCH, NAGPUR.
Writ Petition No. 41 of 2024
Junior Engineer Maharashtra Jivan Pradhikaran and others Vs. Dattatreya Digambar
Gawande and others
__________________________________________________________________________
Office Notes, Office Memoramda of Coram,
appearances, Court's orders of directions Court's or Judge's orders.
and Registrar's Orders.
Ms. M.P.Munshi, Advocate for petitioners.
Mr. V.B.Pise, Advocate for respondent nos.1 to 3.
Mr. Shubhankar Chimote, Adv. h/f Mr. Ved R.Deshpande, Advocate for
respondent no.4.
CORAM : SIDDHESHWAR S. THOMBRE, J.
DATE : 16-10-2025.
1. Heard Ms M.P.Munsihi,learned counsel for petitioners
and Mr. V.B.Pise, learned counsel for respondent nos. 1 to 3 and
Ms. Chimote, learned counsel for respondent no.4.
2. The petitioner challenges the order passed by the
learned Labour Court in Complaint (ULP) No. 15/2016 dated 9th
April, 2024, whereby the complaint filed by the present
respondent came to be partly allowed thereby directing the
complainants to be reinstated in service without granting back
wages.
3. Being aggrieved and dissatisfied with the order passed
by the Labour Court, the petitioners filed Revision
(ULP)No.52/2014 under Section 44 of the MRTU and PULP Act,
whereby the learned Industrial Court confirmed the order passed
by the learned labour Court.
4. The learned counsel for the petitioners has
strenuously submitted that both the Labour Court and Industrial
Court had not considered the basic point which was raised by the
petitioner that the respondents were not appointed by the
petitioners and they were appointed through Contractor and
salary was not paid through cheque. He invited my attention to
the specific contention raised that the complainants themselves
have stated that they have received wages in cash and salary was
neither paid through bank nor through government officials. The
learned Labour Court and the learned Industrial Court did not
deal with the issue of employer-employee relationship. Therefore,
she prayed to allow the present writ petition.
She further contended that as per contents of the
complaint, respondents were appointed orally therefore there is
no record relating to their appointments and they are not
appointed by the Authority by Maharashtra Jeevan Pradhikaran.
No procedure was followed for appointments as well as payment
of salary by way of cash. She further submitted that they were
appointed under the scheme and now that scheme was already
closed and after the closure, no question of continuation of their
services arises. In support of her contentions, she relied upon the
judgment of this Court in the matter of Sarva Shramik Sangh Vs.
Janprabha Offset Works and another (2008-I-LLJ 287). The
learned counsel relied upon para 16 of the said judgment, which
reads as under:
"In view of the decision referred above, as held by the
Hon'ble Apex court, when the relationship as employer
and employee are disputed the Industrial Court while
entertaining the complaint under Section 28 of the
MRTU & PULP Act, had no jurisdiction to decide that
issue. As stated above, in the present case, respondent
No.2 denied the relations of employer and employee, so
Industrial Court was having no jurisdiction to record a
finding on that issue. So whatever may be the evidence
adduced before Industrial Court on the point of
establishing relationship that evidence cannot be looked
into as that Court had no jurisdiction at all and the
finding on that issue being without jurisdiction needs to
be quashed and set aside. The learned Single Judge has
rightly held that the finding recorded by the Industrial
Court is without jurisdiction and is liable to be set
aside".
5. There is no dispute about proposition of law
formulated by the Division Bench of this Court in the above
mentioned judgment. In view of the facts involved in the present
case, the said proposition is not applicable herein.
6. Per contra, learned counsel for the respondents,
submits that the petitioners were appointed orally and there is no
dispute that they have completed 240 days of continuous service
and they have been serving for more than five years. Thereafter,
the petitioners abruptly removed the respondents from the
services on 1.3.2006. Their services were terminated orally,
aggrieved by which they had approached the Labour Court and
filed complaints.
7. The learned counsels for the respondents submit that
the contention about the appointments of the complainants
through Contractor is taken only for raising defence but to that
effect no record was produced. Learned counsel further
submitted that there was no scheme placed on record before the
Labour Court. Even there was no agreement on record placed
before the Labour Court pointing out that they were appointed
through Contractor. He further submits that the register which
was maintained by the department was duly proved and the
record was counter singed and verified by Mr.Chandurkar, Jr.
Engineer and therefore, the learned counsel submits that the
learned Labour Court has rightly allowed the complaint and
directed the reinstatement without back wages and the same was
challenged before the Industrial Court by the petitioners.
Therefore, he prayed for dismissal of the writ petition.
8. I have gone through rival submissions of both counsels
and after going through the orders passed by the Labour Court as
well as the Industrial Court, it clearly reveals that the
complainants were terminated orally with effect from 01.03.2006,
inspite of continuous service for more than five years and
therefore, procedure under the Industrial Disputes Act ought to
have been followed. As far as the grounds which are raised by the
petitioners about the issue of the employee employer relation is
concerned, it reveals that there is only contention raised by the
petitioners placing any documents on record. It needs to be taken
into consideration that when the complaint was filed, it was
expected on the part of the petitioners-Authority/Department to
place on record those documents regarding appointment of
respondents through Contractor. More particularly, the learned
Labour Court has considered the registers maintained by the
Department regarding the payment of salary and those were duly
proved and therefore, the learned Labour Court has rightly
considered the matter and allowed the complaint partly.
9. In view of above discussion, I do not find any
substance in the present writ petition to entertain it under Article
227 of the Constitution of India.
10. The writ petition is dismissed.
(Siddheshwar S. Thombre, J)
mukund ambulkar
Signed by: Ambulkar (MLA)
Designation: PS To Honourable Judge
Date: 16/10/2025 20:14:06
