[Cites 5, Cited by 0]
Bombay High Court
Bandu Chandrabhan Ghodake vs Bajaj Auto Limited Through Authorized ... on 12 January, 2026
2026:BHC-AUG:1439
1 WP / 11806 / 2021
IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY
BENCH AT AURANGABAD
WRIT PETITION NO. 11806 OF 2021
Bandu Chandrabhan Ghodake,
Age : 45 years, Occu : Nil,
R/o Safepur, Tq. & Dist. Beed .. Petitioner
VERSUS
Bajaj Auto Limited
(Through its Authorized Signatory),
MIDC, Waluj, Aurangabad .. Respondent
...
Advocate for petitioner : Mr. Nitil L. Dhobale
Advocate for the respondent : Mr. S.V. Dankh
...
CORAM : SIDDHESHWAR S. THOMBRE, J.
DATE : 12 JANUARY 2026
ORAL JUDGMENT:
Heard. Rule. Rule made returnable forthwith. Heard the
petition finally, with the consent of the parties at the stage of admission.
2. By way of the present petition, the petitioner challenges
the award dated 21.05.2018 passed by the Labour Court - I at
Aurangabad in Reference (IDA) No. 112 of 2008, whereby the
reference forwarded by the Deputy Commissioner of Labour,
Aurangabad came to be answered in negative.
3. The Deputy Commissioner of Labour, Aurangabad had
referred the dispute to Labour Court, Aurangabad, under section 10(1)
(c) read with section 12(5) of the Industrial Disputes Act, 1947 to
2 WP / 11806 / 2021
adjudicate the matter that whether the petitioner was entitled for
reinstatement with continuity in service along with full back wages with
effect from 14.10.1999.
4. The counsel for the petitioner submits that the petitioner
was appointed by the respondent on two occasions i.e. from
11.12.1997 to 30.04.1998 and from 15.03.1999 to 25.05.1999. The
artificial breaks in service were introduced deliberately by the
respondents to break the 240 days of continuous service. The principle
of 'first come last go' was not complied and Section 25F and 25N of the
Industrial Disputes Act, 1947 were not complied with. Even after the
termination dated 25.05.1999, respondent failed to give permanency to
the petitioner. The petitioner approached the Conciliation Officer and
Conciliation Officer sent report to the appropriate Government whereby
the matter was referred to the Labour Court, Aurangabad. In support of
his contention he relied upon the judgment of the Hon'ble Apex Court in
the case of Bajaj Auto Limited Vs Rajendra Kumar Jagannatth
Kathar and Others (2013) 5 SCC 691.
5. The counsel for the respondent submits that the petitioner
did not qualify as a workman and he was appointed on a temporary
basis as per clause 3(c) of the Certified Standing Orders of the factory
to meet out fluctuations in the market. He was not a permanent
employee and his work was not perennial in nature. Therefore, he
supports the order passed by the learned Labour Court.
3 WP / 11806 / 2021
6. Having gone through the order passed by learned Labour
Court, Aurangabad, it is evident that the petitioner was appointed by
the respondent and petitioner comes within the definition of "workman"
under section 2(s) of the Industrial Disputes Act, 1947. The appropriate
reasons were not provided for introducing involuntary breaks in the
service. Evidently, the introduction of breaks in the service were for the
sole purpose of depriving the employee of the status and privileges of a
permanent employee. The principle of 'first come last go' was not
followed and the provisions of section 25F and 25N were not complied
with.
7. The Hon'ble Apex Court in the case of Bajaj Auto Limited
(supra) has observed in paragraph no. 31 as follows-
"31. In the case at hand, as is noticeable from the judgment of the
Industrial Court, the complainants were silent spectators when the
earlier group of cases was tried and the matter travelled to this Court.
It is also observed that there were certain cases which were filed at a
later stage. The Division Bench also considered that the filing of the
complaints range from 1997-2003. Regard being had to the totality of
circumstances, we are inclined to modify the amount of reasonable
compensation which has been granted by the Industrial Court. The
modified order would read as under:
The appellant is directed to pay lump sum amount
calculated at 65 days' salary, inclusive of all allowances for
the number of year each complainant has actually worked
irrespective of the days a complainant may have put in in a
year. The calculation would be made on the basis of work
during a calendar year and that the calendar year in which
a complainant may not have worked at all would be kept
out of consideration while calculating the amount. In
calculating the salary that would be taken into account
would be Rs 8000 p.m. subject to the condition that if on
the date of termination, the salary of any particular
complainant was more, than the calculation would be
made on the actual last drawn salary. The calculation in
4 WP / 11806 / 2021
the above manner would be made for the period up to the
date of terminations in 1997. For the period after
termination till date of this judgment, the basis of
calculation would be lump sum two years of service on the
basis aforesaid viz. 65 days for each year i.e. 130 days.
Although we have modified the order, yet keeping in view the fact that
the respondent workmen had already withdrawn the amount in
pursuance of the order dated 6-2-2012 when leave was granted, no
steps shall be taken by the appellant Company to recover the
differential sum from the respondents."
The recitals of the law laid down by the Hon'ble Apex Court warrant
that reference the forwarded by the Deputy Commissioner of Labour,
Aurangabad be answered partly in affirmative. Hence, I proceed to
pass the following order :
ORDER
1. The Writ Petition is allowed.
2. The Reference is answered partly in affirmative.
3. A] Second party workman is entitled for lump-sum amount
calculated at 65 days' salary, inclusive of all allowances, for the
number of years he has actually worked irrespective of the
days, second party may have put in a year.
B] The Calculation would be made on the basis of work during
a calender year in which the second party may not have
worked at all would be kept out of consideration while
calculating the amount. While calculating the salary of second
party workman the minimum salary that would be taken into
account would be Rs.8000/- per month subject to the condition
that if on the date of termination the salary was more, than
calculation would be made on the actual last drawn salary.
5 WP / 11806 / 2021
4. For the period after termination till the date of judgment, the
second part is entitled for lump-sum amount of two years
service on the basis of aforesaid, namely 65 days for each
year i.e. 130 days.
5. No order as to costs.
6. The copy of the Award be sent to the Deputy Commissioner of
Labour, Aurangabad for publication and necessary action as
per rules.
8. Rule is made absolute in the above said terms.
[ SIDDHESHWAR S. THOMBRE ]
JUDGE
arp/
