Partly allowed

Municipal Council, Sillod v. Bhanudas Jayawanta Sonawane

Bombay HC16 Dec 2013WP/3420/2013

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

The High Court partly allowed a writ petition challenging an ex-parte labour court award due to the employer's negligence. The Court quashed the award, ordered costs for a rehearing, and directed the Labour Court to restore the reference proceedings by granting the employer a hearing opportunity within six months.

What did the court decide?

The impugned award was quashed; the reference was remanded to the Labour Court for a hearing; the petitioner must deposit Rs. 1,00,000 as compensation for rehearing and Rs. 5,000 monthly pending re-in

Municipal Council, Sillod Vs Bhanudas… — Labour and Industrial Disputes | Bombay HC (2013)

¶1

( 1 )

¶2

Writ Petition No.3420 of 2013

¶3

IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE OF BOMBAY BENCH AT AURANGABAD

¶4

WRIT PETITION NO.3420 OF 2013

¶5

Municipal Council, Sillod, Through it’s Chief Officer, Karbhari S/o. Shankar Divekar, Age-42 years, Occu-Service, R/o. At present Sillod, Dist. Aurangabad PETITIONER

¶6

VERSUS

¶7

Bhanudas Jayawanta Sonawane, Age-22 years, Occu- - R/o. Bharat Nagar, Sillod, Tq. Sillod, Dist. Aurangabad RESPONDENT

¶8

Mr.S.D.Hiwrekar, Advocate for petitioner. Mr.A.S.Shelke, Advocate for respondent.

¶9

(CORAM : RAVINDRA V.GHUGE, J.)

¶10

DATE : 16/12/2013

¶11

JUDGMENT :

¶12

Rule. Rule made returnable forthwith and heard finally by consent of the parties.

¶13

Petitioner is challenging the award dtd. 18/01/2012 passed by

¶14

the Labour Court, Aurangabad in Ref. (I.D.A.) No.12 of 2001.

¶15

( 2 ) Writ Petition No.3420 of 2013

¶16

Contention of the petitioner is as under :-

¶17

(a) Respondent was working on daily wages from 03/08/1990 till 16/07/1996.

¶18

(b) Respondent was orally terminated.

¶19

¶20

(d) The petitioner, by inadvertence and oversight, did not even appoint an advocate to contest the said proceeding.

¶21

(e) The award delivered on 18/01/2012 is therefore an ex-parte award.

¶22

(f) No effort was made to have the Award set aside within 30 days of its publication.

¶23

(g) The respondent is still not re-instated in employment.

¶24

(h) Issue involves public employment and therefore a proper hearing needs to be given Lest there would be a miscarriage of justice.

¶25

(i) If reasonable costs are awarded and the matter is remanded back to the Labour Court, Aurangabad, the petitioner would contest the said reference proceeding and assist the Court in its proper adjudication.

¶26

Learned Adv.Mr.Shelke for the respondent employee submits

¶27

that :-

¶28

( 3 ) Writ Petition No.3420 of 2013

¶29

(a) The proceedings were conducted from 2001 till 18/01/2012.

¶30

(b) At every stage in the proceedings, Labour Court gave an opportunity to the petitioner.

¶31

¶32

(d) The respondent has been terminated in 1996 and is out of employment till this date in spite of an award dated 18/01/2012 having been passed.

¶33

(e) The respondent is not re-instated in employment and is facing starvation.

¶34

(f) The award dated 18/01/2012 is delayedly challenged on 05/04/2013.

¶35

(g) Negligence and laxity on the part of the petitioner is writ large on the face of record and similar is its conduct in filing this petition delayedly thereby increasing the agonies of the respondent employee.

¶36

(h) Petition be therefore dismissed.

¶37

( 4 ) Writ Petition No.3420 of 2013

¶38

I have gone through the petition paper book with the

¶39

assistance of the learned advocates and have considered the rival submissions.

¶40

The petitioner may be justified in stating that an issue of public employment is involved. However, the petitioner’s absence, laxity and non participation in the proceedings has led to the passing of an ex-parte Award directing the re-instatement of the respondent. Such apathy towards litigation needs to be deprecated. Government authorities need to be extremely careful in court matters and should fix responsibility on such officers whose negligence and apathy lands the department in such situations. Negligent officers need to be

¶41

penalized for their laxity in such cases.

¶42

Though, in this fact situation, an opportunity of hearing needs

¶43

to be given to the petitioner, the respondent employee needs to be compensated since the entire proceedings would be reversed by remanding the matter back to the Labour Court for enabling the petitioner to file its written statement, cross examine the respondent

¶44

and lead its oral evidence. The hardships being suffered by the

¶45

( 5 ) Writ Petition No.3420 of 2013

¶46

employee would therefore be aggravated and he would have to continue to suffer the rigours of litigation.

¶47

In the light of the above, ends of justice would be met by issuing the following directions :-

¶48

(a) The impugned award dtd. 18/01/2012 is quashed and set aside subject to the condition that the petitioner shall pay an amount of Rs.1,00,000/- to the respondent within a period of eight weeks.

¶49

(b) Reference (I.D.A.) No.12 of 2001 shall stand relegated to the learned Labour Court, Aurangabad and be decided by giving the petitioner a reasonable opportunity in the matter of filing its written statement, cross examining the respondent employee, recording oral and documentary evidence.

¶50

(c) An amount of Rs.1,00,000/- be deposited by the petitioner on or before 14/02/2014 before the Labour Court at Aurangabad. Respondent can withdraw the said amount as compensation for the re-hearing of the reference.

¶51

(d) The Ref. (I.D.A.) No. 12 of 2001 would be restored and decided within a period of six months after the amount of Rs. 1,00,000/- is deposited in the Labour Court.

¶52

( 6 ) Writ Petition No.3420 of 2013

¶53

(e) The Labour Court shall make every endeavour to decide the reference within a period of six months, during which period the petitioner shall pay an amount of Rs.5,000/- per month to the respondent, by depositing it in the Court on or before the 10^th day of each month from February 2014. The respondent all be at liberty to withdraw the said amount, every month.

¶54

(f) Condition of depositing Rs.1,00,000/- on or before 14/02/2014 shall be a condition precedent for restoration of Ref. I.D.A.No. 12/2001. If the same is not made, this order shall stand recalled and the award dated 18/01/2012 shall continue to be in operation.

¶55

(g) Both the parties shall appear before the Labour Court, Aurangabad on 17/02/2014 and extend co-operation to the Court without seeking unnecessary adjournments.

¶56

With these directions, petition is partly allowed. Rule is made absolute in terms of the above directions.

¶57

( RAVINDRA V.GHUGE, J.)

¶58

khs/Dec.2013/wp3420-13

Municipal Council, Sillod v. Bhanudas Jayawanta Sonawane

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Municipal Council, Sillod v. Bhanudas Jayawanta Sonawane

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

What the court decided

A compact analysis

Issues for consideration

Parties & counsel

Coram

Case details

Similar cases

Kashinath Parvati Labade Vs the State of Mahrashtra and Anr.

Namdeo Daulatrao Chavan Vs the Divisional Controller, Maharashtra State Road Transport Corporation and Another

Santosh Vasant Pakale and Anr. Vs Rangnath Nivrutti Dhavalshank and Ors.

Bhairavnath Tulshiram Zanje Vs Maharashtra State Sports and Youth Services and Ors.

Sandip Pandurang Nannaware Vs Shrigonda Krishi Utpana Bazar Samiti and Anr.

Padnalay Construction, Jalgaon Thr Proprietor Vs the State of Mah and Anr.