Dismissed

Mr. Sarjerao Janardhan Hande and Ors. v. Maharashtra State Co-Operative Marketing Federation Ltd.

Bombay HC8 Oct 2012LPA/204/2012

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

The High Court of Judicature at Bombay dismissed an appeal arising from a writ petition challenging a Labour Court order. The court upheld findings that retired employees could not claim overtime allowances as they had withdrawn all pending claims and lacked prima facie proof of overtime rendered.

What did the court decide?

The appeal was dismissed, and the judgment of the learned Single Judge and the order of the Labour Court were upheld.

Mr. Sarjerao Janardhan Hande and Ors. Vs… — Labour and Industrial Disputes | Bombay HC (2012)

¶1

1/4 LPA 204/2012

¶2

S.H.HADAP

¶3

IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY CIVIL APPELLATE JURISDICTION

¶4

LETTERS PATENT APPEAL NO.204 OF 2012 IN

¶5

WRIT PETITION NO.1192 OF 2012

¶6

Mr.Sarjerao Janardhan Hande & Anr. V/s Maharashtra State Co-op.Marketing Federation Ltd.

¶7

… Appellants

¶8

... Respondent

¶9

Mr.A.K.Jalistagi for Appellants. Mr.P.M.Palshikar for Respondent.

¶10

CORAM: MOHIT SHAH, C.J. &

¶11

N.M.JAMDAR, J.

¶12

DATE: 8 OCTOBER 2012

¶13

P.C.:

¶14

This appeal is directed against the judgment dated 18 June 2012 of the learned Single Judge of this Court dismissing the appellants writ petition challenging the order of the Labour Court in the proceedings under section 33 (C) (2) of the Industrial Disputes Act, 1947 (hereinafter referred to as 'the Act').

¶15

The appellants herein; two in numbers, were working as drivers with the Respondent-company. Appellant No.1 took voluntary retirement under the Voluntary Retirement Scheme on 31 March 2008 and the Appellant No.2 retired on superannuation on 30 April 2008. At that time, appellants did not make any claim with regard to overtime allowances, and after getting the benefits

¶16

2/4 LPA 204/2012

¶17

of the retirement both the applicants filed applications on 18 November 2009 claiming arrears of overtime allowances prior to Voluntary Retirement Scheme/Retirement.

¶18

Respondent denied the claim of the appellants and pointed out that as far as Appellant No.1 is concerned, he was paid Rs.62,567/- towards the overtime services. Respondent contended that as per Condition No.19 of the Voluntary Retirement Scheme, an employee cannot file any claim/dispute under the Industrial Dispute Act and as per Condition No.21 an employee was required to withdraw all pending claims/ dispute/complaint for availing of the benefits under the Voluntary Retirement Scheme. The Respondent by its letter dated 29 March 2008 communicated its acceptance of the application for voluntary retirement by the Appellant No.1 and accordingly by an order dated 31 March 2008 relieved Appellant No.1 from its services w.e.f. 31 march 2008. Respondent accordingly issued cheque dated 5 October 2009 to Appellant No.1 for an aggregate sum of Rs.5,52,843/-. Out of the said amount, a sum of Rs.4,90,276/was towards Voluntary Retirement Scheme and a sum of Rs.62,567/- was towards overtime allowances payable to the Appellant No.1 in full and final settlement of all dues. Appellant No.1 accepted the dues from the Respondent. Appellant No.1 submitted purshis in the Complaints alleging unfair labour practices which he had filed against the Respondent in the year 2004, 2005 & 2008 and withdrew all complaints unconditionally.

¶19

In view of the above undisputed facts, no fault can be found

¶20

3/4 LPA 204/2012

¶21

with the order of the learned Single Judge in taking a view that having accepted the Voluntary Retirement Scheme with all terms and conditions, it was not open to Appellant No.1 to make any claim for overtime allowances for the period prior to voluntary retirement under th Voluntary Retirement Scheme.

¶22

As far as Appellant No.2 is concerned, Appellant No.2 retired on attaining the age of superannuation on 30 April 2008 and he was paid all the dues by the Respondent under its office order dated 30 May 2008. The claim of Appellant No.2 for overtime allowances was based on certain overtime forms which were not signed by any officer. Therefore the learned Labour Court as well as the learned Single Judge held that the Appellant No.2 not having produced any material on record to show even prima-facie that he had rendered overtime services, he was not entitled to make any claim for the alleged overtime services rendered prior to the date of his superannuation.

¶23

In view of the above factual findings, we are of the view that no fault can be found with the impugned order of the Labour Court as well as the judgment under appeal of the learned Single Judge.

¶24

Learned counsel for the appellant however submitted that in the judgment of the learned Single Judge, the learned Single Judge has taken a view that the claim of overtime allowance cannot be made a basis for proceedings under Section 33 (C) (2) of the Industrial Disputes Act, 1947. He therefore submits that the

¶25

4/4 LPA 204/2012

¶26

appeal is required to be admitted to consider the said question of law.

¶27

We are afraid the judgment of the learned Single Judge is not required to be read in the manner in which the learned counsel for the appellants has sought to read. In our view, the judgment under appeal is based on factual aspects discussed in the earlier part of the judgment and therefore it is not necessary to deal with the above submission. Subject to above observations, appeal is dismissed.

¶28

CHIEF JUSTICE

¶29

(N.M.JAMDAR, J.)

Mr. Sarjerao Janardhan Hande and Ors. v. Maharashtra State Co-Operative Marketing Federation Ltd.

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Mr. Sarjerao Janardhan Hande and Ors. v. Maharashtra State Co-Operative Marketing Federation Ltd.

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

Vijaykumar Ramrao Dhoke Vs State of Maharashtra and Ors.

Ashok Khetshi Hariya Vs State of Maharashtra and Ors.

Anil G. Gidwani Vs Chief Justice Mumbai High Court

Mpower Realty Llp.. and 2 Ors. Vs Sarojkumar Nathmal Agarwar, and 12 Ors.

O.P. Roongta Vs Icici Securities Ltd.

Khushnuma I. Khan and Raghib I. Khan Vs Asadullah Khan @ Sameer Khan and 3 Ors.