Bombay High Court
Ashok Basappa Dev vs Sharda Dyeing And Printing Works on 2 September, 2025
2025:BHC-OS:14396
Neeta Sawant 18-WP-2052-2022 (OS).docx
IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY
ORDINARY ORIGINAL CIVIL JURISDICTION
WRIT PETITION NO. 2052 OF 2022
Ashok Basappa Dev .....Petitioner
: Versus :
Sharda Dyeing and Printing
Works ....Respondent
Mr. Vinod Shetty i/b. Ms. Ketaki Rege, for the Petitioner.
CORAM : SANDEEP V. MARNE, J.
DATED : 2 SEPTEMBER 2025.
P.C :
1) The petition challenges Award dated 24 February 2020
passed by the Presiding Officer, Fourth Labour Court, Mumbai in
Reference (IDA) No. 256/2012. The Labour Court has answered the
Reference relating to termination of the Petitioner w.e.f.
1 October 20O3 in the negative
2) I have heard Mr. Shetty, the learned counsel appearing
for the Petitioner and have considered the submissions canvassed
by him. I have also gone through the impugned Award, as well as
other records of the case filed alongwith the petition.
_____________________________________________________________________________
Tuesday, 2 September 2025
Neeta Sawant 18-WP-2052-2022 (OS).docx
3) It appears that the Respondent-Employer had earlier
effected closure of the establishment on 12 November 2001 and at
that time paid all the legal dues to the Petitioner. Petitioner did
not question the closure effected by the employer vide notice dated
6 October 2003 which resulted in discontinuance of his
employment. It appears that the Petitioner was re-employed on
16 April 2002 and again closure was effected on 4 February 2003.
Petitioner did not question the closure notice dated
4 February 2003. He was again re-employed and finally came to be
discontinued on account of closure notice dated 6 October 2003.
Petitioner filed Complaint (ULP) No.739/2003 before the Industrial
Court seeking variety of prayers including the challenge to
termination. It appears that during pendency of the said complaint,
an amount of Rs.2,20,000/- was deposited by the employer and the
Petitioner withdrew amount of Rs.1,00,241.94/- out of the said
deposited amount. The Petitioner is present before the Court and
Mr.Shetty, after taking instructions from the Petitioner, confirms
the position that he has received amount of Rs.1,00,241.94/-.
4) Mr. Shetty, would however submit that the employer
had engineered the novel method of getting rid of the workmen by
effecting repeated closures of the establishment. He would submit,
as and when the orders of the employer used to get dried up, the
employer used to effect artificial closure and after receipt of fresh
orders, the very same workmen were re-employed. Be that as it
may. It appears that the Petitioner did not question the closure
notice dated 12 November 2001 and received all the dues at the
_____________________________________________________________________________
Tuesday, 2 September 2025
Neeta Sawant 18-WP-2052-2022 (OS).docx
time of effecting the said closure. He has not thereafter worked for
240 days in any particular year. Though Mr. Shetty has urged that
the entire service is required to be treated as continuous, in my
view, in absence of any challenge to the closure notice dated
12 November 2001, it is not possible to compute the services
rendered prior to 12 November 2002 in continuity with the service
after re-employment for the purpose of counting 240 days in any
particular year. So far as services prior to 12 November 2001 is
concerned, the Petitioner has already been compensated by
payment of dues. This would necessarily result in break in service
and therefore the services rendered prior to 12 November 2001
cannot be counted in continuity with the services after his re-
employment.
5) It is also a matter of fact that the establishment of the
Respondent has actually been closed on 6 October 2003. The
Petitioner himself admitted during the course of his cross-
examination that the establishment has not functioned even once
after 6 October 2023. The proprietor of the Respondent-Employer
has also passed away. This is yet another reason why
reinstatement of Petitioner is not possible. His claim would
therefore would get restricted to only compensation, which is
already paid to him.
6) Reliance by the Petitioner on judgment of the Apex
Court in Deep Chandra Versus. State of U.P. and Anr. 1 is misplaced as
the workman in the said case had rendered more than 240 days of
1 2001-I-LLJ-SC-196
_____________________________________________________________________________
Tuesday, 2 September 2025
Neeta Sawant 18-WP-2052-2022 (OS).docx
service for several years prior to his termination. In the present
case, Petitioner has admittedly not put in 240 days of service after
the first closure effected on 12 November 2001.
7) Considering the above position where the Petitioner
has already been adequately compensated in respect of the
services prior to 12 November 2001, I am not inclined to interfere in
the impugned Award. In my view, the impugned Award is
unexceptional and the petition is devoid of merits. The same is
accordingly dismissed.
[SANDEEP V. MARNE, J.]
Digitally
signed by
NEETA
NEETA SHAILESH
SHAILESH SAWANT
SAWANT Date:
2025.09.03
17:40:51
+0530
_____________________________________________________________________________
Tuesday, 2 September 2025
