Bombay High CourtWP/11770/2018rule discharged

M/S Bajaj Auto Limited Bajaj Nagar Aurangabad v. Rajesh Tukaram Patil

2022-12-13Hon'Ble Shri Justice Sandeep V. Marne44 pages

1 wp_5814.22.odt

IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY

BENCH AT AURANGABAD WRIT PETITION NO. 5814 OF 2022 Dilip Manchakrao Kadam Bajaj Auto Limited, through its Authorized Signatory WRIT PETITION NO. 5812 OF 2022 Sopan Raghunath Baviskar Bajaj Auto Limited, through its Authorized Signatory WRIT PETITION NO. 3841 OF 2022 Sanjay Manchakrao Kadam Bajaj Auto Limited, through its Authorized Signatory WRIT PETITION NO. 5319 OF 2022 Shivaji Vinayakrao Ghodke Bajaj Auto Limited, through its Authorized Signatory WRIT PETITION NO. 5318 OF 2022 Vilas Wamanrao Lahane Bajaj Auto Limited, through its Authorized Signatory WRIT PETITION NO. 3628 OF 2022

2 wp_5814.22.odt Datta Shankar Gaikwad Bajaj Auto Limited, through its Authorized Signatory WRIT PETITION NO. 6874 OF 2022 Santosh Vasantrao Ramdasi Bajaj Auto Limited, through its Authorized Signatory WRIT PETITION NO. 3835 OF 2022 Lahu Sakharam Jogdand Bajaj Auto Limited, through its Authorized Signatory WRIT PETITION NO. 5793 OF 2022 Bhagwan Murlidhar Sawant Bajaj Auto Limited, through its Authorized Signatory WRIT PETITION NO. 5791 OF 2022 Prabhakar Vitthal Akhade Bajaj Auto Limited, through its Authorized Signatory WRIT PETITION NO. 5813 OF 2022 Madhav Sonaji Wabale Bajaj Auto Limited, through

3 wp_5814.22.odt its Authorized Signatory WRIT PETITION NO. 5788 OF 2022 Kisan Ramsingh Rathod Bajaj Auto Limited, through its Authorized Signatory WRIT PETITION NO. 5789 OF 2022 Gajanan Manohar Kharche Bajaj Auto Limited, through its Authorized Signatory WRIT PETITION NO. 5790 OF 2022 Ganesh Radhakishan Waghmare Bajaj Auto Limited, through its Authorized Signatory WRIT PETITION NO. 5792 OF 2022 Santosh Bharat Narayankar Bajaj Auto Limited, through its Authorized Signatory WRIT PETITION NO. 5811 OF 2022 Sanjeev Anandrao More Bajaj Auto Limited, through its Authorized Signatory WRIT PETITION NO. 11571 OF 2022

4 wp_5814.22.odt Santosh Rambhau Gaikwad Bajaj Auto Limited, through its Authorized Signatory WRIT PETITION NO. 3597 OF 2022 Balasaheb Sonba Choudhari Bajaj Auto Limited, through its Authorized Signatory WRIT PETITION NO. 3443 OF 2022 Pandurang Sonba Choudhari Bajaj Auto Limited, through its Authorized Signatory WRIT PETITION NO. 3599 OF 2022 Jeevan Eknath Mali Bajaj Auto Limited, through its Authorized Signatory WRIT PETITION NO. 3595 OF 2022 Devidas Ramkishan Jadhav Bajaj Auto Limited, through its Authorized Signatory WRIT PETITION NO. 1965 OF 2022 Sambha Baliram Chilke Bajaj Auto Limited, through

5 wp_5814.22.odt its Authorized Signatory WRIT PETITION NO. 816 OF 2022 Mahesh Shrikrishna Wange Bajaj Auto Limited, through its Authorized Signatory WRIT PETITION NO. 3838 OF 2022 Manik Laxman Pandav Bajaj Auto Limited, through its Authorized Signatory WRIT PETITION NO. 7360 OF 2022 Rajendra Devidas Deshmane Bajaj Auto Limited, through its Authorized Signatory WRIT PETITION NO. 3844 OF 2022 Hanuman Dnyanoba Kate Bajaj Auto Limited, through its Authorized Signatory WRIT PETITION NO. 11928 OF 2022 Suresh Rangnath Sonwane Bajaj Auto Limited, through its Authorized Signatory WRIT PETITION NO. 11929 OF 2022

6 wp_5814.22.odt Anu Rangnath Nimbalkar Bajaj Auto Limited, through its Authorized Signatory WRIT PETITION NO. 11565 OF 2022 Ramchandra Harishchandra Jawale Bajaj Auto Limited, through its Authorized Signatory WRIT PETITION NO. 11566 OF 2022 Rajesaheb Uttamrao Chavan Bajaj Auto Limited, through its Authorized Signatory WRIT PETITION NO. 11567 OF 2022 Kerbaji Ganpatrao Ghadlinge Bajaj Auto Limited, through its Authorized Signatory WRIT PETITION NO. 11568 OF 2022 Dilip Prabhat Pimple Bajaj Auto Limited, through its Authorized Signatory WRIT PETITION NO. 11570 OF 2022 Babu Maroti Gursudkar Bajaj Auto Limited, through

7 wp_5814.22.odt its Authorized Signatory WRIT PETITION NO. 12709 OF 2022 Pandit Bhaurao Mannajkar Bajaj Auto Limited, through its Authorized Signatory WRIT PETITION NO. 12710 OF 2022 Narayan Wamanrao Ghule Bajaj Auto Limited, through its Authorized Signatory WRIT PETITION NO. 12708 OF 2022 Sanjay Shivling Gulave Bajaj Auto Limited, through its Authorized Signatory WRIT PETITION NO. 12707 OF 2022 Vithal Bapurao Hundiwale Bajaj Auto Limited, through its Authorized Signatory WRIT PETITION NO. 12704 OF 2022 Siddhling Punjayya Kirtankar Bajaj Auto Limited, through its Authorized Signatory WRIT PETITION NO. 12703 OF 2022

8 wp_5814.22.odt Ashok Baburao Lahane Bajaj Auto Limited, through its Authorized Signatory WRIT PETITION NO. 12702 OF 2022 Rameshwar Babanrao Patange Bajaj Auto Limited, through its Authorized Signatory WRIT PETITION NO. 12391 OF 2022 Nanasaheb Changdev Divate Bajaj Auto Limited, through its Authorized Signatory Shri B. R. Kaware, Advocate h/f Shri Nitin L. Dhobale, Advocate for the Petitioner in all above matters.

Shri S. K. Talsania, Senior Advocate i/by Shri S. V. Dankh, Advocate a/w Shri Vinay Deshpande and Shri Rahul Pitekar, Advocates, Advocate for Respondent in all above matters. WRIT PETITION NO. 11755 OF 2018 Kishor Shivaji Harishchandre Shri S. K. Talsania, Senior Advocate i/by Shri S. V. Dankh, Advocate for the Petitioner.

Shri Arvind Ambetkar, Advocate h/f Shri S. R. Andhale, Advocate for the Respondent.

WRIT PETITION NO. 11750 OF 2018

9 wp_5814.22.odt Bajaj Auto Limited Balasaheb Sonba Choudhari Shri S. K. Talsania, Senior Advocate i/by Shri S. V. Dankh, Advocate for the Petitioner.

Shri B. R. Kaware, Advocate for the Respondent. WRIT PETITION NO. 8841 OF 2019 Waluj Prabhakar Vitthal Akhade Shri B. R. Kaware, Advocate for the Respondent. WRIT PETITION NO. 11749 OF 2018 Suryakant Baliram Kendre Shri B. R. Kaware, Advocate for the Respondent. WRIT PETITION NO. 11784 OF 2018 Subhash Kondiba Walke Shri B. R. Kaware, Advocate for the Respondent. WRIT PETITION NO. 11760 OF 2018

10 wp_5814.22.odt Santosh Rambhau Gaikwad Shri B. R. Kaware, Advocate for the Respondent. WRIT PETITION NO. 11751 OF 2018 Suryabhan Anna Shinde Shri B. R. Kaware, Advocate for the Respondent. WRIT PETITION NO. 11795 OF 2018 Shivaji Vinayakrao Godke Shri B. R. Kaware, Advocate for the Respondent. WRIT PETITION NO. 11810 OF 2018 Dilip Kashinath Patil Shri B. R. Kaware, Advocate for the Respondent. WRIT PETITION NO. 14294 OF 2019

11 wp_5814.22.odt M/s Bajaj Auto Limited Ram Limbaji Kamble WRIT PETITION NO. 14293 OF 2019 M/s Bajaj Auto Limited Pradeepkumar Devidas Ingle Shri B. R. Kaware, Advocate for the Respondent. WRIT PETITION NO. 11769 OF 2018 Narayan Waman Ghule Shri B. R. Kaware, Advocate for the Respondent. WRIT PETITION NO. 9009 OF 2019 Waluj, Aurangabad Dattatray Dhondiram Solunke Shri B. R. Kaware, Advocate for the Respondent. WRIT PETITION NO. 11830 OF 2018

12 wp_5814.22.odt Ashok Baburao Kadam Shri B. R. Kaware, Advocate for the Respondent. WRIT PETITION NO. 11828 OF 2018 Kothule Ganesh Bhimrao Shri B. R. Kaware, Advocate for the Respondent. WRIT PETITION NO. 11801 OF 2018 Sukhdev Vishnu Kothawal Shri B. R. Kaware, Advocate for the Respondent. WRIT PETITION NO. 11770 OF 2018 Rajesh Tukaram Patil WRIT PETITION NO. 11803 OF 2018 Ghamlal Rajaram Lohar

13 wp_5814.22.odt Shri B. R. Kaware, Advocate for the Respondent. WRIT PETITION NO. 11799 OF 2018 Dilip Manchakrao Kadam Shri B. R. Kaware, Advocate for the Respondent. WRIT PETITION NO. 11763 OF 2018 Bhausaheb Gopinath Rathod Shri B. R. Kaware, Advocate for the Respondent. WRIT PETITION NO. 11777 OF 2018 Manoj Mukund Kale Shri B. R. Kaware, Advocate for the Respondent. WRIT PETITION NO. 11809 OF 2018 Jagdish Kashinath Kothale

14 wp_5814.22.odt Shri B. R. Kaware, Advocate for the Respondent. WRIT PETITION NO. 11812 OF 2018 Vaijinath Rangnath Sarge WRIT PETITION NO. 11790 OF 2018 Bajaj Auto Limited Aurangabad Jagan Baliram Suryawanshi Shri B. R. Kaware and Shri N. L. Dhobale, Advocates for the Respondent.

WRIT PETITION NO. 11833 OF 2018 Ashok Laxmanrao Surnar Shri B. R. Kaware and Shri N. L. Dhobale, Advocates for the Respondent.

WRIT PETITION NO. 11779 OF 2018 Bajaj Auto Limited Aurangabad Suresh Rangnath Sonawane

15 wp_5814.22.odt Shri B. R. Kaware and Shri N. L. Dhobale, Advocates for the Respondent.

WRIT PETITION NO. 11829 OF 2018 Kerbaji Ganpatrao Ghadlinge Shri B. R. Kaware and Shri N. L. Dhobale, Advocates for the Respondent.

WRIT PETITION NO. 11756 OF 2018 Bajaj Auto Limited, Aurangabad Rajesh Jagannath Mohite Shri B. R. Kaware, Advocate for the Respondent. WRIT PETITION NO. 11825 OF 2018 Bhaskar Tukaram Bodhke Shri B. R. Kaware and Shri N. L. Dhobale, Advocates for the Respondent.

WRIT PETITION NO. 9003 OF 2019

16 wp_5814.22.odt Jeevan Eknath Mali Shri B. R. Kaware, Advocate for the Respondent. WRIT PETITION NO. 11772 OF 2018 Sandeepkumar Vasantrao Magar Shri B. R. Kaware and Shri N. L. Dhobale, Advocates for the Respondent.

WRIT PETITION NO. 11765 OF 2018 Manik Laxmanrao Pandav Shri B. R. Kaware and Shri N. L. Dhobale, Advocates for the Respondent.

WRIT PETITION NO. 8842 OF 2019 Sanjeev Anandrao More Shri B. R. Kaware, Advocate for the Respondent. WRIT PETITION NO. 11781 OF 2018

17 wp_5814.22.odt Arjun Vishnu Solanke Shri B. R. Kaware and Shri N. L. Dhobale, Advocates for the Respondent.

WRIT PETITION NO. 11782 OF 2018 Anil Shankar Gaikwad Shri B. R. Kaware and Shri N. L. Dhobale, Advocates for the Respondent.

WRIT PETITION NO. 11786 OF 2018 Pralhad Asaram Kashid Shri B. R. Kaware and Shri N. L. Dhobale, Advocates for the Respondent.

WRIT PETITION NO. 11789 OF 2018 Sanjay Govindrao Nikam Shri B. R. Kaware and Shri N. L. Dhobale, Advocates for the Respondent.

18 wp_5814.22.odt WRIT PETITION NO. 11766 OF 2018 Rajendra Devidas Deshmane Shri B. R. Kaware and Shri N. L. Dhobale, Advocates for the Respondent.

WRIT PETITION NO. 11783 OF 2018 Prakash Mariba Dakore Shri B. R. Kaware, Advocate for the Respondent. WRIT PETITION NO. 11816 OF 2018 Prakash Macchindra Pawar Shri B. R. Kaware and Shri N. L. Dhobale, Advocates for the Respondent.

WRIT PETITION NO. 8977 OF 2019 Vikas Ramesh Shrikhande

19 wp_5814.22.odt Shri B. R. Kaware, Advocate for the Respondent. WRIT PETITION NO. 11822 OF 2018 Lahu Sakharam Jogdand Shri B. R. Kaware and Shri N. L. Dhobale, Advocates for the Respondent.

WRIT PETITION NO. 11793 OF 2018 Balasaheb Haribhau Kale Shri B. R. Kaware and Shri N. L. Dhobale, Advocates for the Respondent.

WRIT PETITION NO. 11823 OF 2018 Swarup Vitthalrao Dhumal Shri B. R. Kaware and Shri N. L. Dhobale, Advocates for the Respondent.

WRIT PETITION NO. 11771 OF 2018

20 wp_5814.22.odt Shriram Trimbakrao Suryawanshi Shri B. R. Kaware and Shri N. L. Dhobale, Advocates for the Respondent.

WRIT PETITION NO. 9007 OF 2019 Rajesaheb Uttamrao Chavan Shri B. R. Kaware, Advocate for the Respondent. WRIT PETITION NO. 11827 OF 2018 Santosh Vasantrao Ramdasi Shri B. R. Kaware and Shri N. L. Dhobale, Advocates for the Respondent.

WRIT PETITION NO. 11764 OF 2018 Ratnadip Virbhadra Swami Shri B. R. Kaware and Shri N. L. Dhobale, Advocates for the Respondent.

WRIT PETITION NO. 11791 OF 2018

21 wp_5814.22.odt Arjun Shivram Jagtap Shri B. R. Kaware and Shri N. L. Dhobale, Advocates for the Respondent.

WRIT PETITION NO. 11819 OF 2018 Sanjay Sampat Ahire Shri B. R. Kaware and Shri N. L. Dhobale, Advocates for the Respondent.

WRIT PETITION NO. 11758 OF 2018 Mahesh Bhimashankar Yenure Shri B. R. Kaware and Shri N. L. Dhobale, Advocates for the Respondent.

WRIT PETITION NO. 11778 OF 2018 Manoj Chagan Anwekar Shri B. R. Kaware and Shri N. L. Dhobale, Advocates for the Respondent.

22 wp_5814.22.odt WRIT PETITION NO. 11757 OF 2018 Kalyan Ramnath Mutkule Shri B. R. Kaware and Shri N. L. Dhobale, Advocates for the Respondent.

WRIT PETITION NO. 11754 OF 2018 Angadh Anirudh Jadhav Shri B. R. Kaware, Advocate for the Respondent. WRIT PETITION NO. 11814 OF 2018 Sanjay Shivling Gulave Shri B. R. Kaware and Shri N. L. Dhobale, Advocates for the Respondent.

WRIT PETITION NO. 11820 OF 2018 Ramkishan Vishwanath Pendharkar

23 wp_5814.22.odt Shri B. R. Kaware and Shri N. L. Dhobale, Advocates for the Respondent.

WRIT PETITION NO. 9006 OF 2019 Gajanan Manohar Kharche Shri B. R. Kaware, Advocate for the Respondent. WRIT PETITION NO. 11807 OF 2018 Pandurang Sonaba Choudhari Shri B. R. Kaware and Shri N. L. Dhobale, Advocates for the Respondent.

WRIT PETITION NO. 9002 OF 2019 Babu Maroti Gursudkar Shri B. R. Kaware, Advocates for the Respondent. WRIT PETITION NO. 11767 OF 2018

24 wp_5814.22.odt Vishnu Sadashiv Lokhande WRIT PETITION NO. 8976 OF 2019 Dilip Prabhat Pimpale Shri B. R. Kaware, Advocate for the Respondent. WRIT PETITION NO. 11832 OF 2018 Vilas Wamanrao Lahane Shri B. R. Kaware and Shri N. L. Dhobale, Advocates for the Respondent.

WRIT PETITION NO. 11804 OF 2018 Kailash Madhukar Sawant Shri B. R. Kaware and Shri N. L. Dhobale, Advocates for the Respondent.

WRIT PETITION NO. 12115 OF 2018

25 wp_5814.22.odt Yakub Rangnath Bhambhal Shri B. R. Kaware and Shri N. L. Dhobale, Advocates for the Respondent.

WRIT PETITION NO. 11797 OF 2018 Rangnath Nivrutti Landge Shri B. R. Kaware and Shri N. L. Dhobale, Advocates for the Respondent.

WRIT PETITION NO. 11831 OF 2018 Datta Shankar Gaikwad Shri B. R. Kaware and Shri N. L. Dhobale, Advocates for the Respondent.

WRIT PETITION NO. 11798 OF 2018 Sambha Baliram Chilke Shri B. R. Kaware and Shri N. L. Dhobale, Advocates for the Respondent.

26 wp_5814.22.odt WRIT PETITION NO. 11813 OF 2018 Dattatraya Umakant Polawar Shri B. R. Kaware and Shri N. L. Dhobale, Advocates for the Respondent.

WRIT PETITION NO. 11773 OF 2018 Raju Dhondappa Akhade Shri B. R. Kaware and Shri N. L. Dhobale, Advocates for the Respondent.

WRIT PETITION NO. 11821 OF 2018 Madhav Sonaji Wabale Shri B. R. Kaware and Shri N. L. Dhobale, Advocates for the Respondent.

WRIT PETITION NO. 11808 OF 2018 Bhagwan Murlidhar Sawant

27 wp_5814.22.odt Shri B. R. Kaware and Shri N. L. Dhobale, Advocates for the Respondent.

WRIT PETITION NO. 11753 OF 2018 Achut Ambadas Sapkal Shri B. R. Kaware and Shri N. L. Dhobale, Advocates for the Respondent.

WRIT PETITION NO. 11776 OF 2018 Pandurang Bhikan Gore Shri B. R. Kaware and Shri N. L. Dhobale, Advocates for the Respondent.

WRIT PETITION NO. 11788 OF 2018 Devidas Ramkisan Jadhav Shri B. R. Kaware and Shri N. L. Dhobale, Advocates for the Respondent.

WRIT PETITION NO. 11761 OF 2018

28 wp_5814.22.odt Madhukar Nivrutti Sabane WRIT PETITION NO. 9005 OF 2019 Nanasaheb Changdev Divate Shri B. R. Kaware, Advocate for the Respondent. WRIT PETITION NO. 11787 OF 2018 Hanuman Dnyanoba Kate Shri B. R. Kaware and Shri N. L. Dhobale, Advocates for the Respondent.

WRIT PETITION NO. 11815 OF 2018 Anant Haribhau Kathar Shri B. R. Kaware and Shri N. L. Dhobale, Advocates for the Respondent.

WRIT PETITION NO. 11792 OF 2018

29 wp_5814.22.odt Santosh Bharat Narayankar Shri B. R. Kaware and Shri N. L. Dhobale, Advocates for the Respondent.

WRIT PETITION NO. 11817 OF 2018 Anu Rangnath Nimbalkar Shri B. R. Kaware, Advocate for the Respondent. WRIT PETITION NO. 11762 OF 2018 Anna Govindrao Sangle Shri B. R. Kaware and Shri N. L. Dhobale, Advocates for the Respondent.

WRIT PETITION NO. 11818 OF 2018 Kisan Ramsingh Rathod Shri B. R. Kaware and Shri N. L. Dhobale, Advocates for the Respondent.

30 wp_5814.22.odt WRIT PETITION NO. 11824 OF 2018 Shahji Subrao Sable WRIT PETITION NO. 11802 OF 2018 Navnath Maruti Shinde Shri B. R. Kaware and Shri N. L. Dhobale, Advocates for the Respondent.

WRIT PETITION NO. 11834 OF 2018 Pradeep Bhagwat Kolhe Shri B. R. Kaware, Advocate for the Respondent. WRIT PETITION NO. 11826 OF 2018 Ranjit Nanderam Nikalje Shri B. R. Kaware and Shri N. L. Dhobale, Advocates for the Respondent.

31 wp_5814.22.odt WRIT PETITION NO. 11780 OF 2018 Vasudev Vishnu Londhe Shri B. R. Kaware and Shri N. L. Dhobale, Advocates for the Respondent.

WRIT PETITION NO. 11796 OF 2018 Dnyaneshwar Babanrao Patange Shri B. R. Kaware and Shri N. L. Dhobale, Advocates for the Respondent.

WRIT PETITION NO. 11794 OF 2018 Ravindra Sahebrao Ghodake Shri B. R. Kaware and Shri N. L. Dhobale, Advocates for the Respondent.

WRIT PETITION NO. 9004 OF 2019 Ganesh Radhakishan Waghmare

32 wp_5814.22.odt Shri B. R. Kaware and Shri N. L. Dhobale, Advocates for the Respondent.

WRIT PETITION NO. 11774 OF 2018 Mukul Trimbak Shevalikar Shri B. R. Kaware and Shri N. L. Dhobale, Advocates for the Respondent.

WRIT PETITION NO. 11785 OF 2018 Santosh Kacharu Yewale Shri B. R. Kaware and Shri N. L. Dhobale, Advocates for the Respondent.

WRIT PETITION NO. 11806 OF 2018 Ramchandra Harishchandra Javale Shri B. R. Kaware and Shri N. L. Dhobale, Advocates for the Respondent.

WRIT PETITION NO. 11768 OF 2018

33 wp_5814.22.odt Sanjay Manchkrao Kadam Shri B. R. Kaware and Shri N. L. Dhobale, Advocates for the Respondent.

WRIT PETITION NO. 11775 OF 2018 Suresh Digambar Gore Shri B. R. Kaware and Shri N. L. Dhobale, Advocates for the Respondent.

WRIT PETITION NO. 11811 OF 2018 Baban Bhagaji Jagtap Shri B. R. Kaware and Shri N. L. Dhobale, Advocates for the Respondent.

WRIT PETITION NO. 9008 OF 2019 Ashok Madhukar Badgujar Shri B. R. Kaware, Advocate for the Respondent.

34 wp_5814.22.odt WRIT PETITION NO. 9001 OF 2019 Mahesh Shrikrishna Wange Shri B. R. Kaware, Advocate for the Respondent. WRIT PETITION NO. 11759 OF 2018 Balu Vasudev Ghodake Shri B. R. Kaware and Shri N. L. Dhobale, Advocates for the Respondent.

WRIT PETITION NO. 11805 OF 2018 Sudhakar Panditrao Pawar Shri B. R. Kaware and Shri N. L. Dhobale, Advocates for the Respondent.

WRIT PETITION NO. 11752 OF 2018 Vitthal Chagan Damle Shri B. R. Kaware and Shri N. L. Dhobale, Advocates for the

35 wp_5814.22.odt Respondent.

WRIT PETITION NO. 11800 OF 2018 Sumant Ramchandra Dambre Shri B. R. Kaware and Shri N. L. Dhobale, Advocates for the Respondent.

CORAM :

SANDEEP V. MARNE, J.

DATE :

13TH DECEMBER, 2022.

FINAL ORDER :

Some of the petitions are not on today's board. Mr. Dankh, learned counsel for petitioner has mentioned those matters and requested for taking them on board. With the consent of the advocates appearing for parties, those matters are also taken on today's board.

Rival petitions are filed by the employer/Bajaj Auto Limited as well as by its workmen challenging awards of the Labour Courts answering references partly in affirmative and directing payment of lump-sum compensation calculated at 65 days' salary inclusive of all allowances for the number of years the workmen have actually worked. For calculating the salary, the minimum salary of Rs. 8,000/- per month has been directed to be taken into consideration. In respect of period after termination till the date of awards, the employer is directed to pay lump-sum compensation in the form of salary for 130 days.

36 wp_5814.22.odt 3.

The employer/Bajaj Auto Limited is aggrieved by the awards both as regards merits as well as directions to pay interest. It must be added here that while interest is awarded in most of the references, in five references against which (Writ Petition No. 5812 of 2022, Writ Petition No. 11677 of 2022, Writ Petition No. 11678 of 2022, Writ Petition No. 11675 of 2022 and Writ Petition No. 11673 of 2022) no interest has been awarded by the Labour Court.

Mr. Talsania, learned senior advocate appearing for petitioner/Bajaj Auto Limited fairly submits that he would restrict the grievance in the petitions only to the aspect of award of interest at the rate of 6% per annum on the amount of compensation awarded to the workmen. On the other hand, learned counsel appearing for workmen are aggrieved by the quantification of compensation awarded by the Labour Court. 5.

Let me first consider the grievance of the workmen about quantum of compensation awarded by the Labour Court. It is submitted on behalf of workmen that the Labour Court has erroneously taken into consideration monthly salary of Rs. 8,000/-, which was applicable in the year 1997. It is submitted that by the year 2012 the monthly salary of permanent employees had gone at Rs. 25,000/-and, therefore, Labour Court ought to have taken into consideration monthly salary of Rs. 25,000/- for applying formula for payment of salary. This contention is opposed by Mr. Talsania by submitting that workmen in the present petitions are fence-sitters, who did not question their termination for a long period of time and they cannot be paid a premium in the form of additional amount of

37 wp_5814.22.odt compensation over and above the one paid to their counterparts who approached Courts immediately after termination. 6.

I find substance in the submissions of Mr. Talsania. The workmen involved in the present petitions are terminated during various years, the last terminations being in the year 1999. They did not question their termination by filing appropriate proceedings. Demand notices were issued in the year 2005 and reference was made on 04.07.2008. As against this, the workmen covered by judgment in the case of Bajaj Auto Limited Vs. R. P. Savant and others reported in (2004) 9 SCC 486, had approached the Labour Court immediately after their termination and after the matter traveled upto the Apex Court, a settlement was reached between the parties wherein it was decided to take into consideration monthly salary of Rs. 8,000/- for applying formula for computing lump-sum amount of compensation.

Similar is the case of workmen covered by judgment in the case of Bajaj Auto Limited Vs. Bhojane Gopianth D. and others reported in (2004) 9 SCC 488, wherein also the concerned workmen had raised grievance relating to their termination within a reasonable time and the Supreme Court once again directed monthly salary of Rs. 8,000/- to be taken into consideration for computing amount of compensation. The workmen covered by the present petitions on the other hand did not file proceedings in respect of their termination till the year 2005. Therefore, they cannot be rewarded for their lethargy by awarding compensation at higher rate than the one awarded to all workmen who were vigilant in approaching the Courts. 7.

There is yet another reason why the petitions filed by

38 wp_5814.22.odt workmen deserve to be rejected. As rightly submitted by Mr. Talsania, the workmen covered by the present petitions were waiting for outcome of litigations that were initiated by their cohorts and did not adopt any remedies in respect of their own rights till the year 2005. They raised demand notice for the first time in the year 2005, which resulted into a reference being made on 04th July, 2008. The awards were made partly in favour of workmen on various dates beginning from the year 2018. Immediately after the awards, the employer/Bajaj Auto Limited filed present petitions on 17th August, 2018. When the petitions came up for admission on 29th October, 2018, this Court directed deposit of principal amount of compensation sans interest.

By order dated 02nd May, 2019, the deposited amount has been withdrawn by the workmen. Long after withdrawal of the compensation amount, the workmen have filed their own petitions in April 2022 for claiming enhanced amount of compensation. It is rightly pointed out by Mr. Talsania, that the petitions filed by workmen are in the nature of chance litigation after withdrawal of amount of compensation granted by the Labour Court and deposited by the employer in this Court. 8.

Also of relevance is the fact that the Judgment in Bajaj Auto Limited Vs. Rajendrakumar J. Kathar and others reported in (2013) 5 SCC 691 has been deleivered by the Apex Court in the year 2013 when alleged wage rise for permanent emplyees to Rs. 25000 was already operational. Nonetheless the Apex Court directed the pay payable at the time of termination (Rs. 8000) to be taken into consideration in cases of workmen covered by judgment in Rajendrakumar J. Kathar. So what is not granted by the Apex Court to diligent workmen cannot be extended to the

39 wp_5814.22.odt Petitioner who exercised their remedies after long lapse of time. Therefore, the prayer for taking into consideration monthly salary of Rs. 25,000/- for applying formula for award of lump-sum amount of compensation deserves outright rejection. 9.

Now, I come to the petitions filed by employer/Bajaj Auto limited. As observed above, Mr. Talsania, learned senior advocate has fairly given up the other points raised in the petitions and has restricted the grievance only to the direction for payment of 6% interest in some of the awards passed by the Labour Court. Mr. Talsania has pointed out that in several of the cases decided contemporaneously by the Labour Court, no interest was awarded on lump-sum amount of compensation. Even today, I have before me atleast five writ petitions (Writ Petition No. 5812 of 2022, Writ Petition No. 11677 of 2022, Writ Petition No. 11678 of 2022, Writ Petition No. 11675 of 2022 and Writ Petition No. 11673 of 2022), in which the Labour Court has not awarded any interest on the lump-sum amount of compensation.

10.

Mr. Talsania has taken me through entire history of litigation under which formula for payment of lump-sum amount of compensation came to be fixed by the Apex Court. In Bajaj Auto Limited Vs. R. P. Savant and others (supra), the disputes were settled between the parties when the matter was reached upto Apex Court and in para No. 5 of the judgment it is held as under :

"5.

The matter has been settled between the parties. It is agreed that the order of reinstatement in favour of the workmen be set aside and instead the appellant

40 wp_5814.22.odt management would pay to each of the workmen a lump sum amount calculated at 65 days' salary, inclusive of all allowances, for the number of years each workman has actually worked irrespective of the days a workman may have put in in a year. It is further agreed that the calculation would be made on the basis of work during a calender year and that the calendar year in which a workman may not have worked at all would be kept out of consideration while calculating the amount. While calculating the salary for each 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 of any particular workman is more then the calculation would be on the actual last-drawn salary.

The calculation in the above manner would be made for the period upto the date of termination in the year 1997-98. For the period after termination till date, the basis of calculationw ould be lump sum three years of service on the basis aforesaid, namely, 65 days for each year i.e. salary for 195 days. The payment so calculated and made would be in full and final payment of all claims of the workmen and the workmen will have no further claim from the Company. The appeal is disposed of in the above terms agreed by learned counsel for the parties. The impugned judgment would not be treated as a precedent either on fact or on law."

11.

Thus in Bajaj Auto Limited Vs. R. P. Savant and others (supra) while noting the formula for payment of lump-sum amount of compensation as per settlement reached between the parties, the Apex Court did not direct payment of any interest on the amount of compensation.

12.

In Bajaj Auto Limited Vs. Bhojane Gopianth D. and others (supra) out of the total 1197 workmen, 1006 workmen had already compromised the matter and the Supreme Court fixed the formula for payment of lump-sum amount of compensation for remaining workmen in para No. 17 of the judgment the Supreme Court directed as under :

41 wp_5814.22.odt 17.

In Civil Appeal No. 5003 of 2002, the total number of respondents is 1197, out of which 1006 have compromised the matter as stated above. Now, so far as the remaining workmen are concerned, we are of the view that it would be just and expedient that they are paid a reasonable amount of compensation under Section 30 of the 1971 Act which would be calculated in the manner indicated hereinafter. Each of the remaining workmen shall be paid a lump-sum amount calculated at 85 days' salary, inclusive of all allowances, for the number of years each workman had actually worked irrespective of the days a workman 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 workman may not have worked at all would be kept out of consideration while calculating the amount.

In calculating the salary for each workman, the minimum salary that would be taken into account would be Rs. 8,000/- per month subject to the condition that if on the date of termination, the salary of any particular workman was more, then the calculation would be made on actual last drawn salary. The calculation in the above said manner would be made for the period up to the date of termination in the year 1997-98. For the period after termination till date, the basis of calculation would be lump-sum two years of service on the basis aforesaid, namely, 85 days for each calendar year i.e. salary for 170 days.

13.

Thus again in the case of Bajaj Auto Limited Vs. Bhojane Gopianth D. and others (supra), the Apex Court did not award any interest to the workmen covered by that judgment. 14.

Again in Bajaj Auto Limited Vs. Rajendrakumar J. Kathar and others reported in (2013) 5 SCC 691, the Apex Court took into consideration the conduct of the workmen covered by that decision who were silent spectators when other group of cases were filed and made following observations in para No. 13 of the judgment.

42 wp_5814.22.odt 13.

The next plank of submission relates to the finding recorded by the Industrial Court relating to the absence of sufficient evidence to come to a conclusion that rotational practice had been adopted by the company. As is evincible, the Industrial Court has observed that even from the seniority list produced in complaint ULP No. 192 of 1997, it could not be pointed out that a particular workman was disengaged on earlier date and the workman who was disengaged five months to eighteen months prior was engaged in his place for the same work to have the rotation. We have already noted how the learned single Judge and the Division Bench have commented on the said aspect.

In the earlier round of litigation, it relied on the same period while dealing with the rotational employment and other findings and recorded its view as under: - "Learned counsel appearing on behalf of the appellant Company made a vain attempt to challenge the finding recorded by the Industrial Court to the effect that the workmen succeeded in providing that the appellant Company had employed unfair labour practice in its establishment in relation to the matters enumerated in Item 6 of Schedule IV of the 1971 Act.

We have been taken through the award of the Industrial Court in extensor from which it appears that the court recorded the said finding after threadbare discussion of evidence adduced on behalf of the parties and there being no infirmity therein, the High Court was quite justified in not interfering with the same, accordingly, it is not possible for this Court to disturb the same in view of the fact that the finding is a pure finding of fact and no interference therewith is called for."

15.

Thus again in Bajaj Auto Limited Vs. Rajendrakumar J. Kathar and others (supra) Apex Court did not award any interest to the workmen covered by that decision. 16.

The awards of the Labour Courts essentially followed the formula directed by the Apex Court in its decision Bajaj Auto Limited Vs. Rajendrakumar J. Kathar and others (supra). As observed above, in none of the judgments directing payment of

43 wp_5814.22.odt lump-sum compensation, the Apex Court awarded any interest. It is not that the amount of compensation was otherwise due or payable by the employer to the workmen in 2005 or 2008. Their entitlement to receipt of compensation was determined for the first time when Awards were made in 2018 onwards. Therefore, it is incomprehensible as to on what basis the Labour Court, in select cases, proceeded to award 6% interest on the amount of compensation. In my view therefore the direction of the Labour Court for payment of interest at the rate of 6% per annum on the amount of compensation from the date of filing of reference till its actual realization is unsustainable and the same deserves to be set aside.

17.

Consequently, I proceed to pass following order.

O R D E R

The writ petitions filed by the employer/Bajaj Auto Limited are partly allowed and direction of the Labour Court for payment of 6% interest per annum on the amount of lumpsum compensation is set aside. B.

The Writ petitions filed by workmen are dismissed. C.

In respect of workmen who have already withdrawn compensation amount deposited by the Bajaj Auto by providing solvent surety, their surety stands discharged. D.

If any of the workmen who are yet to withdraw the deposited amount of compensation, such workmen are

44 wp_5814.22.odt permitted to withdraw the same without furnishing any surety.

Rule is discharged.

[SANDEEP V. MARNE, J.] bsb/Dec. 22