Dismissed

The Executive Engineer PWD Ahmednagar v. Karbhari Narayan More

Bombay HC25 Jan 2011WP/290/2011

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

In this writ petition, the court considered an award directing the employer to provide daily-rated work to an employee without continuity of service and back wages acknowledging 240 days of service. The applicant challenged the order citing violation of Section 25H.

What did the court decide?

Writ petition dismissed; no costs awarded; the Labour Court's award stands.

The Executive Engineer PWD Ahmednagar Vs… — Pension and Retirement Benefits | Bombay HC (2011)

¶1

¶2

FARAD CONTINUATION SHEET NO. IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY APPELLATE SIDE, BENCH AT AURANGABAD. WRIT PETITION NO.: 290 OF 2011

¶3

Office Notes, Office Memoranda of Coram, appearances, Court’s orders or directions and Registrar’s orders.

¶4

Court’s or Judge’s orders.

¶5

WRIT PETITION NO.: 290 OF 2011

¶6

***

¶7

1.The contention is, the learned Labour
Court has granted relief directing to provide
daily rated work as per seniority list to the
Petitioner without continuity of service and
without back wages. Learned A.G.P. urged,
Reference was preferred after 21 years and

¶8

finding of completion of 240 days is not

¶9

based upon appreciation of evidence.
Advocate Mr. Barde for Respondent has pointed

¶10

out that service put in by Respondent
employee was about three years and provision
of section 25G and 25H of Industrial Disputes
Act are found to be violated.

¶11

2.With the assistance of learned counsel,

¶12

I have perused impugned Award. Impugned
Award, after considering material made

¶13

available, records a finding that the

¶14

Respondent had put in 240 days of continuous
service. The learned Labour Court has also

¶15

¶16

FARAD CONTINUATION SHEET NO.

¶17

IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY APPELLATE SIDE, BENCH AT AURANGABAD. WRIT PETITION NO.: 290 OF 2011

¶18

Office Notes, Office Memoranda of Coram, appearances, Court’s orders or directions and Registrar’s orders.

¶19

Court’s or Judge’s orders.

¶20

considered the argument about stale claim in

¶21

para 11 and found that the Industrial Dispute
cannot be thrown away on such ground. Then,
it has proceeded to consider provisions of
Section 25G and 25H of Industrial Disputes
Act.

¶22

3. Its findings are finding of fact.

¶23

4.The employee is not given continuity and

¶24

is also not given back wages. Thus, as
daily-wager he is to be given work as and

¶25

when the work is available. Even otherwise
provisions of section 25H of I.D.Act oblige
petitioner/ employer to do this. Hence, by

¶26

impugned order no prejudice is caused to the
Petitioner. Petition is dismissed. No

¶27

costs.

¶28

[B.P.DHARMADHIKARI, J.]

¶29

Dated:25/01/2011.
ans/290

The Executive Engineer PWD Ahmednagar v. Karbhari Narayan More

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

The Executive Engineer PWD Ahmednagar v. Karbhari Narayan More

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

What the court decided

A compact analysis

Issues for consideration

Statutes considered

Parties & counsel

Coram

Case details

Similar cases

Sushila Shankar Khilari and Ors. Vs Sunita Nana Rohakale

Larsen and Tourbo Limited Vs Shrirang Laxman Lande

Yasin Ramjan (Pinjari)@ Munsuri. Vs Babasaheb Shankarrao Labade.

Tukaram Jayaji Bhavar and Anr. Vs Babu Jayaji Bhavar and Anr.

Narsana Dhondiba Kalme and Ors. Vs Chaya Vijaykumar Ugile and Ors.

Pradeep Gangaram Ghanekar Vs Pramila Madhukar Bhavsar