[Cites 1, Cited by 0]
Bombay High Court
Divisional Controller Msrtc Palghar ... vs Ananat Mahadev Sawardekar on 7 March, 2026
Author: Amit Borkar
Bench: Amit Borkar
2026:BHC-AS:11261
6-wp-18758-2024.doc
MPBalekar
IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY
CIVIL APPELLATE JURISDICTION
WRIT PETITION NO. 18758 OF 2024
Divisional Controller MSRTC,
Palghar Division and Anr. ... Petitioners
V/s.
Ananat Mahadev Sawardekar ... Respondent
Mr. Yashodeep Deshmukh a/w Vaidehi Pradeep and
Pratham Gawali for the Petitioners.
Mr. Vaibhav J. a/w Pandurang A. for the Respondents.
CORAM : AMIT BORKAR, J.
DATED : MARCH 7, 2026
P.C.:
1. The present writ petition arises from an order passed by the
Industrial Court. By the said order, the Industrial Court directed
the present petitioner not to deduct any amount from the wages of
the respondent for the purpose of recovery under Departmental
Establishment Order No. 557 of 2020 dated 12 September 2020,
unless such recovery was made after following due process of law.
The Industrial Court also directed the petitioner to refund the
amount of wages which had already been recovered from the
respondent for the period between September 2019 and November
2019. While directing such refund, the Industrial Court further
ordered that the said amount should carry interest at the rate of 7
percent per annum. Being dissatisfied with this direction, the
employer has approached this Court under its writ jurisdiction.
The grievance of the petitioner is that the Industrial Court has
1
::: Uploaded on - 07/03/2026 ::: Downloaded on - 07/03/2026 20:31:08 :::
6-wp-18758-2024.doc
passed the impugned order without properly examining the
governing service circular and the factual background under which
the recovery was initiated.
2. The facts which give rise to the dispute are largely
undisputed. The respondent employee was suffering from
paralysis, which is a serious medical condition affecting the ability
of a person to discharge his duties. Because of this illness, the
respondent was granted special leave for a period of 303 days
commencing from 2 December 2017 and continuing until 30 July
2018. After the expiry of this period, further leave was sanctioned
for additional periods of 61 days and thereafter 181 days.
Subsequently, the employer issued Departmental Establishment
Order No. 557 of 2020 dated 12 September 2020. By this order,
the leave taken by the respondent for the period from 2 January
2019 to 30 June 2019, which consisted of 180 days, was treated as
leave without wages. As a consequence of this declaration, the
employer proceeded to recover wages paid for the said period. The
respondent felt aggrieved by this action and therefore filed a
complaint before the Industrial Court under Items 5, 9 and 10 of
Schedule IV of the Maharashtra Recognition of Trade Unions and
Prevention of Unfair Labour Practices Act, 1971. The said
complaint was registered as Complaint No. 162 of 2020. Upon
hearing the parties, the Industrial Court allowed the complaint and
passed the impugned order which is now under challenge in the
present writ petition.
3. Certain aspects of the case are not in dispute between the
parties. It is admitted that the respondent was indeed suffering
2
::: Uploaded on - 07/03/2026 ::: Downloaded on - 07/03/2026 20:31:08 :::
6-wp-18758-2024.doc
from paralysis. The fact of his illness has never been questioned by
the employer. It is also not disputed that the various periods of
leave earlier granted to the respondent were sanctioned by the
competent authority. Further, the issuance of the order dated 12
September 2020 declaring the period of 180 days as leave without
wages is also not in dispute. However, upon examining the record,
it appears that the Industrial Court has not taken into
consideration an important circular governing such situations. The
circular in question is Circular No. 2 of 2010 dated 4 March 2010.
This circular lays down the policy of the employer in respect of
employees who suffer from serious sickness. It provides that where
an employee is suffering from specified serious ailments, and the
sickness is duly certified by a Medical Board constituted for that
purpose, such employee can be granted special leave for a period
extending up to three years. This benefit is in addition to the
ordinary leave which the employee is otherwise entitled to under
the service rules.
4. The illness of paralysis clearly falls within the category of
sickness contemplated by the said circular. It is also not disputed
that the respondent's medical condition was examined and
certified by the Medical Board as required by the circular. Once
these conditions were satisfied, the respondent became entitled to
the benefit contemplated by the circular. In other words, the
respondent was eligible to receive leave for a period of up to three
years on account of the certified sickness, over and above the
normal leave otherwise admissible to him. This position flows
directly from the terms of the circular itself. When such a
3
::: Uploaded on - 07/03/2026 ::: Downloaded on - 07/03/2026 20:31:08 :::
6-wp-18758-2024.doc
governing policy exists and when the factual requirements under
the policy are satisfied, the benefit provided under the circular
cannot be ignored while determining the legality of the employer's
action. In this background, the declaration that the leave for 180
days was without wages required careful examination in light of
the circular.
5. The Industrial Court, while granting relief to the respondent,
appears to have modified the nature of the entitlement by
directing that the respondent should receive half of his average
salary for the said period. In my opinion, the Industrial Court did
not have sufficient basis to alter the nature of the entitlement in
this manner without fully addressing the implications of the
circular and the service rules governing the case. The role of the
Court in such matters is to ensure that the rights flowing from the
applicable policy are properly applied. Once the circular
recognized the respondent's entitlement to special leave on
account of the certified illness, the dispute essentially concerned
the extent to which the salary paid during that period could be
adjusted or recovered. Therefore, the relief granted required
appropriate modification so that it reflects the correct balance
between the employer's right to regulate service conditions and the
employee's entitlement arising from the circular.
6. Taking into consideration the entire material on record, the
nature of the illness suffered by the respondent, the certification by
the Medical Board, and the governing circular dated 4 March
2010, I am of the opinion that the impugned order requires limited
modification. Justice would be served if the respondent is held
4
::: Uploaded on - 07/03/2026 ::: Downloaded on - 07/03/2026 20:31:08 :::
6-wp-18758-2024.doc
entitled to half of his average salary for the relevant period, while
permitting the employer to recover the remaining portion. Hence,
following order:
ORDER
(i) The impugned judgment and award passed by the Industrial
Court stands modified. It is held that the petitioners shall be
entitled to recover dues only to the extent representing half of the
average salary of the respondent for the relevant period.
Consequently, the petitioners are directed to repay to the
respondent the remaining half of the average salary for the period
from 2 January 2019 to 30 June 2019.
(ii) The aforesaid amount shall be paid to the respondent within
a period of six weeks from today. In the event the amount is not
paid within the said period of six weeks, the same shall carry
interest at the rate of 7 percent per annum until payment.
7. The writ petition stands disposed of in above terms.
(AMIT BORKAR, J.)
