Bombay High Court
The Principal General Manager, ... vs G.B. Khetade And Anr. on 3 September, 2025
Author: Milind N. Jadhav
Bench: Milind N. Jadhav
2025:BHC-AS:36938
WP.5605.2004.docx
Amberkar
IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY
CIVIL APPELLATE JURISDICTION
WRIT PETITION NO.5605 OF 2004
The Principal General Manager, Bharat Sanchar
Nigam Limited, Kalyan Telecom .. Petitioner
Versus
G.B. Khetade (since deceased) through legal
heirs Zumbrabai Gangadhar Khetade and Ors. .. Respondents
....................
Ms. Neeta Masurkar, Advocate for Petitioner.
Mr. Sahil A. Pandire, Advocate for Respondent Nos.1A to 1F.
...................
CORAM : MILIND N. JADHAV, J.
Reserved on : AUGUST 12, 2025
Pronounced on : SEPTEMBER 03, 2025
JUDGMENT:
1. Heard Ms. Masurkar, learned Advocate for Petitioner and
Mr. Pandire, learned Advocate for Respondent Nos.1A to 1F.
2. The present Writ Petition challenges order dated
06.03.2003 passed by Central Government Industrial Tribunal No. 2,
Mumbai, in Reference No. 2/96 of 2000 filed under Clause (d) of sub-
section (1) and sub-section (2)(a) of Section 10 of the Industrial
Disputes Act, 1947, read with the Industrial Disputes (Central) Rules,
1957 (for short, 'the said Act'), whereby Award is passed against
Petitioner directing payment of remuneration to Respondent for the
period 06.12.1992 to 10.05.1999.
1 of 12
WP.5605.2004.docx
2.1. Facts borne out from record indicate that Petitioner,
Bharat Sanchar Nigam Ltd. (BSNL), hired original Respondent No. 1,
G.B. Khetade as casual labourer.
2.2. Respondent was hired by then Telecommunication
Department, Ulhasnagar on multiple ocassions in a discontinous
manner. His work spanned from 01.04.1980 till 30.11.1980 as daily
rate worker with artifical breaks. He was again employed from
01.08.1985 till 31.07.1989 in breaks. He was again employed on
01.08.1990 till his arrest in 06.07.1992 for alleged theft.
2.3. He was arrested by Ulhasnagr Police on 06.12.1992 in the
act of stealing 40 Kg. of Telephone Cable from Drum 4929 with a
duplicate key as well as theft of Black Rubber Cover worth Rs. 4000/-.
2.4. His services were terminated following his arrest on
07.12.1992 which was the higher authority on 27.01.1993 without
conduct of inquiry or appropriate documentation.
2.5. Original Respondent No. 1 was later acquitted of the
criminal charges by the JT. C.J. JD & JMFC Court , Ulhasnagar by
Judgment dated 28.04.1999.
2.6. Thereafter he requested for reinstatment with full back
wages and raised a parallel issue of retrenchment vide letter addressed
to Petitioner but his request was rejected. On 25.07.1999 the Union
2 of 12
WP.5605.2004.docx
raised Industrial dispute regarding illegal termination of his services
and demanded retrenchment compensation.
2.7. The original employer i.e. Telephone exchange,
Ulhasnagar was taken over by Bharat Sanchar Nigam Limited (BSNL)
on and from 01.10.2000.
2.8. As all reconciliation efforts failed and case was referred by
Assistant Labour Commissioner to the Secretary, Ministry of Labour,
Government of India. The Government of India thereafter referred the
matter for adjudication to CGIT-2 under Section10(2A)(1)(d).
2.9. The CGIT passed Award dated 06.03.2003 against
Petitioner holding that it failed to prove its case and directed reinstated
with continuity in service alongwith back wages from 06.12.1992.
3. Hence the Writ Petition.
4. Ms. Masurkar, learned Advocate appearing for Petitioner -
BSNL would submit that Industrial Court erred in granting relief to the
Respondent in CGIT Reference No. - 2/96 OF 2000 . She would submit
that Respondent was employed as a daily rate casual labour on "when
work available" basis and was not working in any sanctioned post prior
to 06.12.1992. She would submit that status of his work prior to
06.12.1992 is debatable as he was employed on "work only" basis and
hence he has worked on very few occasions from 01.09.1990 till
3 of 12
WP.5605.2004.docx
06.12.1992. According to her this fact is not duly appreciated by the
Court before passing the Award.
4.1. She would submit that Industrial Court failed to consider
that Respondent workman was not working on sanctioned post so that
he could be re-employed by virtue of the impugned Award and fail to
pay full back wages parallel with retrenchment from 06.12.1992 till
10.05.1999. The relief of Retrenchment provided under section 2(oo)
of the said act cannot be prescribed to the Respondent in question. She
would submit that the award of Industrial Tribunal granting relief of
retrenchment to Respondent is null and void and hence it should be set
aside. She would submit that Respondent raised the dispute after
delay of 7 years and under the doctrine of delay, laches and
acquiescence where Respondent did not act within a reasonable time
period and also failed to justify the delay, it would enable the Company
to block his back wages.
4.2. She would submit that Respondent was not a member of
any Union and neither he submitted written application regarding his
admission as a member of the Union nor his wish / will to join the
Union. She would submit that unverified status of Respondent in said
Union never existed so therefore the Union could not have taken up
his case before the Industrial Tribunal.
4 of 12
WP.5605.2004.docx
4.3. She would submit that Respondent had voluntarily
abandoned his duties after his arrest on 06.11.1992. She would submit
that his whereabouts were not known after 06.11.1992 until his
acquittal on 28.04.1999. She would submit that he did not raise any
dispute regarding his employment. She would submit that although
Respondent state that he had sent a letter stating that he must be
reinstated on compassionate grounds dated 02.02.1994, the same was
not acknowledged by Petitioner's office. She would submit that
Respondent remained unauthorisedly absent and abandonded hiswork
for six and a half years. She would submit that CGIT failed to consider
that Respondent's services were terminated because of his arrest.
4.4. She would vehemently agree that Respondent is not
acquitted by Trial Court on merits but technical grounds and lapses in
prosecution. She would submit that his aquittal by Trial Court is on the
ground of benefit of doubt which does not allow him to seek
continuous employment and full back wages parallel with
retrenchment as acquittal on benefit of doubt is not equal to
honourable acquittal. Hence she would urge the Court to allow the
Petition and set aside the impugned order dated 06.03.2003
5. Mr. Pandire, learned Advocate appearing for Respondents
(who are legal heirs of original Respondent No. 1) would submit that
the decision of Industrial Court be upheld and Respondent be
5 of 12
WP.5605.2004.docx
compensated. He would submit that dismissal/termination of
Respondent in the present facts is not fair and is against the principles
of the natural justice. He would submit that his termination was
without following the dur process of law and other procedural
obligations prescribed in the Section 25F of the said Act and hence his
discharge without any enquiry amounts to grave injustice and against
principles of natural justice.
5.1. He would submit that Respondent was also employed on
a continious basis from 1985 to 1992 with artifical breaks and was
terminated following his arrest on 06.02.1992 without following the
procedure for his retrenchment under Section 25F of said act i.e.
without any documentation, notice, show cause notice.
5.2. He would submit that Respondent was arrested on
charges of theft and therefore his services were automatically
terminated because of his arrest without any notice issued to him. He
would submit that Respondent showed his intent to resume services by
letter dared 02.02.1994, whihc is not acknowledged by Petitioner. He
would submit that Respondent addressed another letter dated
20.12.1992 about his prior record and his clean compliant free
background while working in the organization prior to he being
arrested. He would submit that Respondent did not acknowledge the
letter either. He would submit that on aquitted once again he showed
6 of 12
WP.5605.2004.docx
interest and willingness to join services which was denied by
Petitioner.
5.3. He would submit that letters addressed by Respondent on
several different occasions after his acquittal were acknowledged by
Petitioner but was intentionally ignored as agreed in the cross-
examination of Petitioner's witness as stated in the Award of Industrial
Tribunal-2, Kalyan. Letter dated 02.02.1994 and 10.05.1999 sent by
Respondent after getting bail and acquittal respecctively regarding his
will were also ackowledged by Petitioner by using appropriate stamps
but still intentionally ignored.
5.4. In support of his above submissions he has referred to and
relied upon the following decisions of the Supreme Court, this Court
and various other High Courts:-
(1) Water supply & Sewage Disposal Vs P.O. Labour
Court & Anr.1
(2) Nedungadi Bank Ltd. Vs K.P. Madhavankutty and Ors.2
(3) The State of Maharashtra through the... Vs Shri Anil
Eknath Kharat.3
(4) Sr. Suptd Telegraph(Traffic) Bhopal Vs Santosh Kumar
Seal and Ors.4
(5) Deepali Gundu Surwase Vs Kranti Junior Adhyapak
Mahavidyalaya. (D.ED.) and Others.5
1 1990 SCCR(3) 111
2 AIR 2000 SC 839
3 2008 (110) BOM.L.R. 669
4 AIR 2010 SC 2140
5 (2013) 10 SCC 324
7 of 12
WP.5605.2004.docx
(6) Water supply & Sewage Disposal Vs P.O. Labour Court
& Anr.6
(7) Bharat Sanchar Nigam Ltd. Vs Bhurumal.7
(8) Imtiyaz Ahmad Malla Vs The State of Jammu And
Kashmir.8
(9)Surender Prasad Vs Central Public Works Deprtment.9
6. I have heard Ms. Masurkar, learned Advocate for
Petitioner and Mr. Pandire, learned Advocate for Respondent Nos.1A to
1F and perused the record of the case. Submissions made by both the
Advocates at the bar have received due consideration of the Court.
7. At the outset, it appears that Writ Petition is filed under
the Industrial Disputes Act. The Petitioner challenges Award dated
06.03.2003 passed by the Central Government Industrial Tribunal No.
2, Mumbai (CGIT) in Reference No. 2/96 of 2000. By the said Award,
the Tribunal directed reinstatement of the workman, late Shri G.B.
Khetade (now represented by his legal heirs), with continuity in
service and full back wages from 06.12.1992 till 10.05.1999. The
Petitioner, BSNL, seeks to set aside the said Award on multiple
grounds, inter alia that the Respondent was a daily rate worker
employed on "when work available" basis,that he was not employed or
appointed to a sanctioned post, that he was arrested for theft and
6 Delhi HC W.P.(C) 795/2000 Decided on 14.05.2013
7 (2014)2 Supreme Court cases ( L&S) 373
9 AIR 2010 SC 2140
8 of 12
WP.5605.2004.docx
accordingly terminated and that the dispute was raised much belatedly
and without proper authority by the Union on his behalf.
8. The facts on record indicate that the Respondent had
admittedly worked intermittently with the Telecommunication
Department, Ulhasnagar, from 1980 onwards. His last period of
engagement was from 01.08.1990 till 06.12.1992, on the Muster Roll
prior to his arrest on allegation of theft.
9. It is undisputed that Respondent was arrested on
06.12.1992 and he was terminated from service forthwith without any
inquiry on the following day i.e. 07.12.1992. No inquiry was
conducted, principles of natural justice was not followed prior to
termination. Record reflects that Respondent workman got bail and
gave letters for his reinstatement in 1992 itself, but Petitioners ignored
the same. Thereafter he was acquitted from the criminal charge by the
Competent Court on 28.04.1999 and he once again again approached
the Petitioner who ignored him.
10. Despite Petitioner's contentions, Tribunal has rightly held
that termination without inquiry, especially when allegations are
serious and criminal proceedings are pending, is unsustainable. The
obligation of the employer to hold a domestic inquiry is not dispensed
with merely because a criminal prosecution is launched. The Petitioner
9 of 12
WP.5605.2004.docx
has failed to demonstrate any compliance with the procedure under
Section 25F of the Industrial Disputes Act, 1947 and no material is
placed before Court to justify non-adherence thereto.
11. The Tribunal has also considered Petitioner's argument
regarding delay and laches. Record shows that the Respondent sent
representations immediately after being released on bail and again in
1999 post his acquittal but was intentionaaly ignored by Petitioner.
The Union took up his cause shortly thereafter. The Court found no
gross negligence or inaction on the part of the Respondent to deny
relief solely on the ground of delay to these facts, greviance of
Petitioner on the ground of delay is unacceptable.
12. The argument that Respondent was not a member of the
Union which raised the dispute is also devoid of merit. It is well settled
that a Union may espouse the cause of a workman even without
formal membership, if done with his consent or in the larger interest of
the workmen. The Tribunal has correctly applied the legal maxim of
espousal and its findings are consistent with settled principles of
industrial jurisprudence.
13. The Petitioner further contends that acquittal was not on
merits but by giving him benefit of doubt, and therefore, reinstatement
should not automatically follow. However, in the absence of a
10 of 12
WP.5605.2004.docx
departmental inquiry or any evidence on record justifying termination,
this Court cannot uphold the punitive action meted out by the
Petitioners to the Respondent merely based on a criminal allegation
which has not been substantiated. Further Respondent has stood
cleared of all charges.
14. The submission regarding Respondent's employment
status being "daily rate" and hence dis-entitling him to relief is also
rejected in view of the aforesaid findings that he admittedly worked
from 1980 to 1992 with the Petitioners. The Tribunal has taken into
account the pattern of Respondent's employment and found continuity
in engagement sufficient to attract the protection of the Industrial
Disputes Act, which I am unable to dislodge.
15. On the basis of the above, no case is made out to interfere
with the well reasoned and cogent Award passed by the learned
Tribunal. The Writ Petition is devoid of merit and stands dismissed.
Respondent has expired in the interregnum. Hence under the Award,
the dues that would have to be paid over to Respondent. Respondent
Nos. 1A to 1F equally i.e. in equal proportion forthwith.
16. All parties including Registry of this Court shall act on a
server copy of this order downloaded from the website of the High
Court. Respondent's Advocate shall forthwith provide the details of
11 of 12
WP.5605.2004.docx
Respondent Nos. 1A to 1F viz, self attested Aadhar card copy, self
attested bank account details and passbook copy with IFSC Code etc
any other details as required to the Registry of this Court.
17. By order dated 12.12.2005, this Court (Coram: V.C. Daga,
J.) directed Petitioners to deposit the entire backwages from
06.12.1992 amounting to Rs.6,10,137/- which was deposited by
Petitioner in this Court on 13.02.2006.
18. In view of dismissal of Petition, Registry is directed to
release the said amount with all accrued interest on the said amount to
Respondents as directed forthwith on production of a server copy of
this judgment without any delay and in any event within a period of
two weeks from the date of submitting the details by the Advocate for
Respondents. If any Fixed Deposit is required to be broken, the same
shall be broken forthwith for the above purpose.
19. Resultantly, the Writ Petition stands dismissed with the
above directions.
Amberkar [ MILIND N. JADHAV, J. ]
AJAY TRAMBAK
TRAMBAK UGALMUGALE
UGALMUGALE Date: 2025.09.03
15:19:23 +0530
12 of 12
