Sec. To Govt., Rural Development And Soil Conservation Dept., Thr. Principal Chief Conservator v. Ramchandra S/O Babanrao Wadatkar And Others

1 wp524.19

IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY

NAGPUR BENCH : NAGPUR WRIT PETITION NO.524/2019 The Secretary to Govt. Rural Development and Soil Conservation Department, through Principal Chief Conservator of Forests, Nagpur and others ..Vs..

Ramchandra S/o Babanrao Wadatkar and others - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - Office Notes, Office Memoranda of Coram, Court's or Judge's orders appearances, Court's orders of directions and Registrar's orders - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - Shri V.P. Maldhure, A.G.P. for the petitioners. Shri N.Y. Thengre, Advocate for respondent Nos.1 to 6. CORAM : Z.A. HAQ, J.

DATE : 24.1.2019.

On oral request made by the learned A.G.P., leave to amend prayer clause is granted.

Heard.

The respondent No.1 was in employment with the petitioners since 15th December, 1985, the respondent No.2 was in employment since 4th October, 1984, the respondent No.3 was in employment since 15th January, 1985, the respondent No.4 was in employment since 7th September, 1982, the respondent No.5 was in employment since 7th September, 1982 and the respondent No.6 was in employment since 7th September, 1983. The respondent Nos.1 to 6 had filed complaint ULP No.523/1996 before the Labour Court complaining that their services were illegally terminated. Initially the complaint was filed before the Labour Court at Nagpur, however, on constitution of Labour Court at Wardha, the complaint was transferred to Labour Court Wardha. The

2 wp524.19 Labour Court decided the complaint on 3rd August, 2005 and directed the employer to reinstate the respondent Nos.1 to 6 with continuity of service. This order was challenged by the employer (present petitioners) before the Industrial Court in Revision ULP No.187/2005. As the Labour Court had rejected the claim of the respondent Nos.1 to 6 for back-wages, the complainants had also filed Revision No.195/2005. Both these revisions were dismissed by the Industrial Court by order dated 7th February, 2009. The employer (present petitioners) had filed Writ Petition No.5560/2009 before this Court which was dismissed on 5th March, 2010. In the order dated 5th March, 2010 this Court recorded that the findings given by the Labour Court that juniors to the present respondent Nos.

1 to 6 were retained were not challenged by the employer and those findings had attained finality. Inspite of the fact that the claim of the respondent Nos.1 to 6 was maintained up to this Court, they were not reinstated and they were required to approach the Labour Court again under Section 48 of the Maharashtra Recognition of Trade Unions and Prevention of Unfair Labour Practices Act, 1971. These proceedings were also opposed on various technical grounds and ultimately a settlement was arrived at before the Lokadalat on 6th February, 2011 and the respondent Nos.1 to 6 were reinstated on 7th February, 2011. After reinstatement, the respondent Nos.

3 wp524.19 therefore, the respondent Nos.1 to 6 again approached the Industrial Court under Section 28 read with Items 5, 9 and 10 of Schedule IV of the Act of 1971. This complaint is dismissed by the Industrial Court by the impugned order.

The contention of the petitioners is that the Industrial Court has committed an error by upholding the claim of respondent Nos.1 to 6 for monetary benefits at par with the other employees whose services are regularized. It is submitted that those employees who are regularized earlier had been in employment on 19th October, 1996 and, therefore, their claim for regularization is considered as per the government resolution dated 19th October, 1996. According to the petitioners, the respondent Nos.1 to 6 were not in employment with the petitioners on the date on which the government resolution dated 19th October, 1996 was issued and, therefore, they cannot claim benefit of that government resolution. This submission made on behalf of the petitioners cannot be accepted. The Labour Court, while allowing the complaint ULP No.

29/1996 filed by the respondent Nos.1 to 6 held that the complainants were entitled for reinstatement with continuity of service. As recorded earlier, the respondent Nos.1 to 6 had been in employment with the petitioners for more than a decade prior to 19th October, 1996. The Industrial Court has rightly held that the respondent Nos.

4 wp524.19 government resolution dated 19th October, 1996. After examining the material placed on record, hearing learned A.G.P. for the petitioners and the learned Advocate for the respondent Nos.1 to 6, and going through the impugned order, I find that the Industrial Court has dealt with all the relevant aspects. It cannot be said that the impugned order suffers from any illegality or perversity which necessitates the interference by this Court in the extra-ordinary writ jurisdiction. It is submitted that the respondent Nos.2, 3, 5 and 6 have surpassed the age of superannuation.

Obviously, they will be entitled for the monetary benefits till the date on which they would have retired on attaining the age of superannuation, and also for retirement benefits as made available to the other employees whose services were regularized as per government resolution dated 19th October, 1996. The petitioners shall make available to the respondent Nos.1 to 6 all the benefits till 15th March, 2019, failing which the petitioners will be liable to pay interest on the amount receivable by each of the respondent at the rate of 9% per annum, the interest being chargeable from 1st September, 2005 till the amount is paid to the respondents or is deposited before the Industrial Court.

Considering the facts of the case, specially that the respondent Nos.1 to 6 are required to litigate for their legitimate claim before various Courts for more than two decades, the petitioners shall pay costs of

5 wp524.19 Rs.20,000/- to each of the respondent Nos.1 to 6. This amount shall be paid and affidavit of compliance be filed on record of this petition till 15th May, 2019. The petition is dismissed.

JUDGE Tambaskar.