Allowed

The State of Maha. Thr Its Secretary, Mumbai and Other v. Bhagwal Kawdu Shinde

Bombay HC18 Sept 2012CAZ/475/2011

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

In this civil application, the High Court stayed the Industrial Court judgment concerning an employee's claim for Government Resolution benefits due to lack of a finding on 240 days of service. The court allowed the application and maintained the status quo on daily wage employment.

What did the court decide?

Civil application allowed; Industrial Court judgment stayed; status quo of daily wage employment maintained.

The State of Maha. Thr Its Secretary, Mumbai… — Pension and Retirement Benefits | Bombay HC (2012)

¶1

caz475-11.order

¶2

IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY NAGPUR BENCH, NAGPUR.

¶3

Civil Application Z No. 475 of 2011 in Letters Patent Appeal No. 424 of 2011 in

¶4

Writ Petition No. 4902 of 2009

¶5

The State of Mah. thro. its Secretary,Gram Vikas &J alsandharam Department and Ors.

¶6

-vs-

¶7

Bhagwat Kawdu Shinde

¶8

Office notes, Office Memoranda of Coram, appearances, Court's orders or directions and Registrar's orders.

¶9

Court's or Judge's Orders.

¶10

Mr. A.M. Deshpande, learned AGP for the applicant. Mr. Naukarkar, learned counsel for respondent sole.

¶11

CORAM : SMT. VASANTI A. NAIK, & SUNIL P. DESHMUKH , JJ.

¶12

DATE : 18th September, 2012.

¶13

Since the respondent was not granted the benefit of Government Resolution dated 19.10.1996 and the respondent was not absorbed by the petitioner on a Class IV post on the pay scale mentioned in the Government Resolution, the respondent filed a complaint before the Industrial Court alleging unfair labour practice on the part of the petitioner. The respondent claimed the benefit of the Government Resolution dated 19.10.1996. The Industrial Court held that the respondent was in continuous service for a period of five years before 1.11.1994 and hence he was entitled to the benefit of the Government Resolution dated 19.10.1996. The learned Single Judge dismissed the writ petition filed by the appellant.

¶14

On a reading of the judgment of the Industrial Court it appears that the Industrial court had held that the respondent was in continuous service for a period of five years before 1.11.1994 but the Industrial Court did not consider whether the

¶15

caz475-11.order

¶16

respondent had actually put in 240 days service for five years prior to 1.11.1994. For availing the benefit of the Government Resolution dated 19.10.1996 it was necessary for the respondent to have worked for 240 days for five years before 1.11.1994. The Industrial Court has, however, not recorded that finding in favour of the respondent. In the absence of the finding, it appears on a reading of the Government Resolution dated 19.10.1996 that the benefit of the Government Resolution could not have been granted to the respondent.

¶17

Since the appellant has made out a prima facie case, the judgment of the Industrial Court dated 31.3.2009 is stayed during the pendency of the Letters Patent Appeal. However, since the respondent was working on daily wages in the Social Forestry Department during the pendency of the complaint and the writ petition before this Court and continues to work on daily wages, the appellant shall not disturb this arrangement till the decision of the Letters Patent Appeal.

¶18

Civil application is allowed in the aforesaid terms and disposed of.

¶19

JUDGE JUDGE

¶20

Hirekhan

The State of Maha. Thr Its Secretary, Mumbai and Other v. Bhagwal Kawdu Shinde

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

The State of Maha. Thr Its Secretary, Mumbai and Other v. Bhagwal Kawdu Shinde

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

Smt. Vani Ram Aietwar and Anor. Vs State of Mah. Thr. Pri. Secy. Mumbai and Anor.

Mr. Jagannath Nagendrasa Kabadi Vs U.O.I. Thr. the Secty., AND3ORS

Amitkuma S/O Shrawan Apkurkar Vs Zilla Parishad, Thru Its C.E.O.

Vimal Rukhabsa Bhure After Marriage Sau Vimalbai Narendra Ahale Vs State of Maharashtra Department of Education Mantralaya Mumbai

Smt. Pramila Wd/O Sureshkumar Mehta and Ors. Vs the Bank of Baroda Thr. Auth. Signatory and Ors.

Hemraj Vitthalrao Tirpurkar Vs the Maharashtra State Road Transport Corporation Thr Its Divisional Controller Nagpur