Dismissed

Municipal Council Daryapur through Chief Officer v. Ravishankar S/O Ramkrushna Ganeshpure and Another

Bombay HC20 Feb 2013WP/700/2013

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

The High Court dismissed two writ petitions challenging orders of the Labour and Industrial Courts. Those courts had reinstated workmen without continuity of service or back wages after finding termination violated the Industrial Disputes Act. The High Court held the lower courts justified in their factual findings. uphold the reinstatement order without back wages or continuity of service.

What did the court decide?

Writ petitions dismissed with no order as to costs; lower court orders reinstating workmen without continuity of service or back wages upheld.

Municipal Council Daryapur through Chief… — Pension and Retirement Benefits | Bombay HC (2013)

¶1

WP700&707-13

¶2

¶3

FARAD CONTINUATION SHEET No . IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY NAGPUR BENCH AT NAGPUR

¶4

WRIT PETITION NO. 700/2013

¶5

(MUNICIPAL COUNCIL, DARYAPUR VERSUS RAVISHANKAR RAMKRUSHNA GANESHPURE & ANR) WITH

¶6

WRIT PETITION NO. 707/2013

¶7

( MUNICIPAL COUNCIL, DARYAPUR VERSUS PRAKASH UTTAMRAO THAKARE & ANOTHER)

¶8

¶9

Office Notes, Office Memoranda of Coram, Court's or Judge's orders appearances, Court's orders of directions and Registrar's orders

¶10

- - - - Shri R.J. Kankale, counsel for the petitioner.

¶11

CORAM : SMT. VASANTI A. NAIK, J. DATE : FEBRUARY 20, 2013.

¶12

Since the issue involved in these writ petitions is identical, they are heard together and are decided by this common order.

¶13

By these petitions, the petitioner challenges the two concurrent orders passed by the Labour and the Industrial Court holding that the petitioner had committed unfair labour practice in terminating the services of the respondent no.1 and the petitioner was liable to reinstate the respondent no.1-complainants in service without continuity of service and back wages.

¶14

The complainants claimed to have worked with the petitioner for a couple of years and the services of the complainants came to be terminated in violation of the provisions of Section 25-F of the Industrial Disputes Act. Since the provisions of Section 25-F, 25-G and 25-H were violated, the complainants filed the complaint. The petitioner filed the written statement and denied the claim of the respondent no.1. It was the case of the petitioner that there was no relationship of employer-employee between the petitioner and the complainants. According to the petitioner, the complainants were not the employees of the petitioner but, were engaged on piece rate basis through contractors. It was the case of

¶15

WP700&707-13

¶16

¶17

the petitioner that the appointments of the complainants were not made by following the due procedure prescribed by law.

¶18

The Labour and the Industrial Court, on an appreciation of the evidence on record, allowed the complainants filed by the respondent no.1. The Labour Court held that the respondent no.1 in both the petitions had proved that they had put in 240 days of continuous service and their services were terminated in violation of the provisions of Section 25-F of the Industrial Disputes Act. The order passed by the Labour Court was confirmed by the Industrial Court in the revision filed by the petitioner. It was held by both the Courts that the respondent no.1 in both the petitions were able to prove that there was an employer-employee relationship between the parties as several documents were placed by the complainants on record to show that the petitioner had directed them to perform the duties of a particular nature. The Courts also found that the petitioner had failed to prove its case that the respondent no.1 in both the petitions were appointed by a contractor on piece rate basis. According to both the Courts, no cogent evidence whatsoever was placed by the petitioner to prove the said fact though it was admitted by the witness of the petitioner in his cross-examination that documentary evidence was available. The Courts, therefore, in the facts and circumstances, held that it was necessary to direct the petitioner to reinstate the respondent no.1 in service without continuity of service and back wages.

¶19

On hearing the learned counsel for the petitioner and on a perusal of the impugned orders, it appears that the Courts were justified in allowing the complaints filed by the respondent no.1. The Courts found, on an appreciation of the evidence on record, that the respondent no.1 had put in more than 240 days of service and their services were terminated without following the provisions of Section 25-F of the Industrial Disputes Act. The

¶20

WP700&707-13

¶21

¶22

Courts came to a conclusion on a proper appreciation of the material on record that the petitioner had failed to prove that the complainants were not its employees and were the employees of the contractors, who had appointed them on piece rate basis. The findings recorded by both the Courts being pure findings of facts cannot be lightly interfered with, in exercise of the writ jurisdiction. Moreover, the Courts had not granted the relief of continuity of service and back wages to the respondent no.1 in both the petitions and had merely directed the petitioner to reinstate them in service as their services were terminated in violation of the provisions of Section 25-F of the Act. The case of the petitioner that there was no vacancy and, therefore, no relief could be granted to the respondent no.1 is liable to be rejected as the petitioner was directed to merely reinstate the complainants in service without continuity of service and back wages. There is no reason to interfere with the impugned orders in exercise of the writ jurisdiction.

¶23

In the result, the writ petitions are dismissed with no order as to costs.

¶24

JUDGE

¶25

APTE

Municipal Council Daryapur through Chief Officer v. Ravishankar S/O Ramkrushna Ganeshpure and Another

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Municipal Council Daryapur through Chief Officer v. Ravishankar S/O Ramkrushna Ganeshpure and Another

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

Sagar S/O Rambhau Umre Vs Mahatma Gandhi Institute of Medical Science and Others

The Zilla Parishad Amravati Thr. Chief Executive Officer Vs the Additional Commissioner Amravati Division

Rajeshri Amar Gajbhiye Vs Deputy Director of Land Records, Nagpur and Others

Priti W/O Devendra Rangashahi Vs Devendra Ramaswami Rangashahi and Another

Prashant S/O Shankarrao Meshram Vs Smt. Shweta W/O Prashant Meshram and Anr.

Municipal Council Daryapur Thr. Its Chief Officer, Daryapur Vs Prakash S/O Uttamrao Thakare and Another