Partly allowed

The Commissioner, Municipal Corp. Parbhani v. Mohd. Kausar Mohd. Karimoddin

Bombay HC20 Dec 2013WP/1489/2013

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

This court partially allowed Writ Petitions filed by the Municipal Corporation challenging Labour Court orders reinstating workers. The court quashed prior judgments due to the Corporation's failure to produce documentary evidence on service continuity and remanded complaints to the Labour Court with directions to assess evidence afresh.

What did the court decide?

Impugned judgments of Labour and Industrial Courts quashed; complaints remanded to Labour Court for fresh hearing and evidence recording; monthly compensation deposit directed until withdrawal.

The Commissioner, Municipal Corp. Parbhani Vs Mohd… — Service and Employment | Bombay HC (2013)

¶1

1 WP1485.2013

¶2

FARAD CONTINUATION SHEET

¶3

IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY BENCH AT AURANGABAD

¶4

WRIT PETITION NO. 1485 OF 2013

¶5

The Commissioner, Municipal Corporation, Parbhani Vs Syed Karimullah Hussani

¶6

ALONG WITH

¶7

CIVIL APPLICATION NO. 7991 OF 2013 WRIT PETITION NO. 1486 OF 2013 WRIT PETITION NO. 1487 OF 2013 WRIT PETITION NO. 1488 OF 2013 WRIT PETITION NO. 1489 OF 2013 WRIT PETITION NO. 1490 OF 2013 WRIT PETITION NO. 1491 OF 2013 WRIT PETITION NO. 1492 OF 2013 WRIT PETITION NO. 1493 OF 2013 WRIT PETITION NO. 1494 OF 2013 WRIT PETITION NO. 1495 OF 2013

¶8

Office Notes, Office memorandum of Coram, appearances, Court orders or directions & Registrar’s orders.

¶9

Court's or Judges order.

¶10

In all matters : Mr S. S. Bora, Advocate for petitioner / applicant Mr S. D. Ghayal, Advocate for respondent

¶11

CORAM : RAVINDRA V. GHUGE, J. DATE : DECEMBER 20^TH , 2013

¶12

PER COURT :

¶13

Heard Mr S. S. Bora, the learned Advocate for

¶14

the petitioner/applicant and Mr S. D. Ghayal, the learned Advocate for respondent-sole.

¶15

2 WP1485.2013

¶16

This matter was heard for quite sometime.

¶17

Issue is as regards claim of illegal termination having been made by the respondents before the Labour Court by filing ULP Complaints under the Maharashtra Recognition of Trade Unions and Prevention of Unfair Labour Practices Act, 1971 (Stake Act). Both the parties have contested the matter, led oral and documentary evidence.

¶18

All those complaints were partly allowed by the impugned Judgment and Order dated 9^th March, 2011 by the learned Judge, Labour Court, Nanded. Reinstatement along with continuity in service has been granted. All the complainants, who are respondents herein, have been deprived of back wages.

¶19

Mr S. S. Bora, the learned Counsel for the petitioner, makes a serious grievance. A statistical data pertaining to the number of days worked by the workers in each year having been drawn from the original record available with the petitioner, was placed before the Labour Court. The petitioner expected the Labour Court to consider

¶20

3 WP1485.2013

¶21

the same in its proper perspective. The said data was signed by the then Chief Officer, before the said body was converted into the Municipal Corporation of Parbhani.

¶22

He contends that, if the said data had been looked into by the learned Court, it would have been proved beyond doubt that none of the workers have completed 240 days in the continuous and uninterrupted service of the petitioner-Corporation. If that was the situation, the Judgment of the Labour Court would have been totally different since it is a settled position in law that the burden and onus of proving completion of 240 days lies initially on the workman.

¶23

A Civil Application No. 7991 of 2013 in Writ Petition No. 1485 of 2013 has been filed by the petitioner to place on record the entire supporting documents to the said statistical chart. The said civil application is pending.

¶24

Mr Bora, the learned Counsel for the petitioner/applicant, has placed before this Court copy of the said chart, which was filed before the Labour Court. The same is taken on record and marked as Exh. ‘X’ for identification.

¶25

4 WP1485.2013

¶26

According to him, if the said chart was disbelieved, the petitioner could have produced the entire original record to substantiate the figures mentioned in the chart. The Labour Court has not considered the said chart. He, therefore, submits that, a basic deficiency has crept into the adjudicating process before the Labour Court and its outcome in the form of the impugned judgment has therefore, seriously affected the petitioner.

¶27

He further states that a revision (ULP) was filed against all these respondents before the Industrial Court at Jalna and they have been mechanically rejected. He, therefore, prays that the impugned Judgments be quashed and set aside and the petition be allowed.

¶28

Mr Ghayal, the learned Counsel for the respondent–workers in all these petitions, has strenuously supported the said impugned Judgments. He submits that adequate opportunity was given to the petitioner to produce its oral and documentary evidence. An order for production of documents was also issued to the petitioner, which was disregarded and the petitioner chose to file a statistical data instead of producing the original papers.

¶29

5 WP1485.2013

¶30

According to him, the Labour Court rightly disregarded Exh. X and has, therefore, come to the conclusion that the workers had proved completion of 240 days in the continuous and uninterrupted service of the petitioner. He submits that neither has the Labour Court fallen in any error nor has the Industrial Court mechanically rejected the revision petitions. He prays for the dismissal of the petitions.

¶31

It is seen from Exh. X that, all the respondents herein have worked upto 1990 or 1991. Thereafter, according to Exh. X, none of the workers have worked till 2009. When the Labour Court did not go into Exh. X, it would be unfair to the respondents to consider the probative value of Exh. X, in this Court and at this stage. At the same time, the said chart running into about 9 pages cannot be disregarded.

¶32

This case undoubtedly involves an issue of public employment, which falls within the ambit of Articles 14 and 16 of the Constitution of India. The petitioner is a State instrumentality. Owing to the laxity on the part of the officers of the petitioner in not filing the record before the Labour

¶33

6 WP1485.2013

¶34

Court and taking the Labour Court proceedings casually has resulted in the impugned Judgments being passed by the Labour Court, which have been held by the Industrial Court.

¶35

This Court recently has taken a serious view about such laxity and apathy being shown by officers working in the limbs of the Government in dealing with Court cases in Writ Petition No. 3420 of 2013, decided on 16^th December, 2013. This seems to be a case of a similar kind.

¶36

On the one hand, the petitioner being a limb of the Government should not suffer on account of such deficiencies and laxity. On the other hand the respondents who are workers and who claim to be out of employment since 2009 onwards, are struggling for their livelihood. In the event, the matters are to be remanded back to the

¶37

Labour Court for fresh consideration, the respondentsworkers need to be compensated.

¶38

In the light of the above, all these petitions are being partly allowed with the following directions.

¶39

(i) The impugned Judgments and Orders of the Labour Court and the Industrial Court in all the Complaints (ULP) and the Revision Petitions

¶40

7 WP1485.2013

¶41

respectively, are quashed and set aside.

¶42

(ii) All the ULP Complaints filed by the respondents are relegated back to the file of the learned Labour Court, Nanded.

¶43

(iii) The oral and documentary evidence already on record shall not be discarded and will be considered by the Labour Court while deciding all the ULP complaints.

¶44

(iv) Both the parties are at liberty to lead further oral and documentary evidence in support of their respective contentions.

¶45

(v) All the said ULP complaints shall be heard from the stage of recording oral and documentary evidence and shall be decided as expeditiously as possible, on priority, on or before 30^th June, 2014.

¶46

(vi) The respective parties shall appear before the Labour Court at Nanded on 13^th January, 2014.

¶47

(vii) All the parties shall cooperate with the Labour Court and shall abide by the dates and stages fixed by the Labour Court, while hearing all these complaints.

¶48

(viii) None of the parties shall ask for any adjournments on unreasonable grounds.

¶49

8 WP1485.2013

¶50

(ix) Petitioner shall note that this is an opportunity for it to place necessary evidence before the Labour Court.

¶51

(x) From January to June – 2014, the petitioner shall regularly deposit an amount of Rs. 3,000/per respondent for each month on or before the 15^th day of the month in the Labour Court.

¶52

(xi) The respondents-workers shall be at liberty to withdraw the said amount as compensation.

¶53

Petitions are accordingly disposed of.

¶54

( RAVINDRA V. GHUGE ), JUDGE

¶55

Punde / Dec - 13

The Commissioner, Municipal Corp. Parbhani v. Mohd. Kausar Mohd. Karimoddin

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

The Commissioner, Municipal Corp. Parbhani v. Mohd. Kausar Mohd. Karimoddin

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

What the court decided

A compact analysis

Issues for consideration

Cases cited

Statutes considered

Parties & counsel

Coram

Case details

Similar cases

Ghanashyam Digambar Lamboli Vs the State of Mah and Ors.

Shankar Kachru Meshram Vs Malti Madan Meshram and Anr.

Dr Hedgewar Seva Samiti Conducted Agr Science Centre Kolada Dist Nandurbar Thr Secretay and Ors. Vs Purushottam Ramdas Joshi and Anr.

The Commissioner, Municipal Corporation Parbhani Vs Parmeshwar Lumbaji Waghmare

The Commissioner, Municipal Corp. Parbhani Vs Anjiram Digambar Dhale

The Commissioner, Municipal Corp. Parbhani Vs Baban Bapurao Lengule