This writ petition challenged the Industrial Court's order quantifying backwages for a period of unemployment. The High Court found the delay was attributable to the petitioner, upheld the award, and dismissed the petition.
Rule discharged; writ petition dismissed; no order as to costs.
This page shows the compact analysis of this judgement. The full analysis — procedural history, issue-by-issue holdings with ratio and obiter, advocates, and paragraph-level evidence for every claim — is being added to the record in batches and will appear here when this judgement has been through it.
WP/3605/2014
1
IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE OF BOMBAY BENCH AT AURANGABAD
WRIT PETITION NO. 3605 OF 2014
Sow. Mangal Dhanraj More, Age 43 yeas, Occ. Service R/o In front of MIDC Police Station. In the building of Dr. Talegaonkar, Latur. ..Petitioner
Versus The Managing Director, Indira Sahakari Soot Girni Maryadit, MIDC, Plot Nos. F-125 to F-137, Latur. ..Respondent
Advocate for Petitioner : Shri Ghute A.T. Advocate for Respondent 1 : Shri Kulkarni G.N.(Mardikar)
CORAM : RAVINDRA V. GHUGE, J. Dated: October 13, 2015
ORAL JUDGMENT :-
dated 14.9.2012 delivered in Revision (ULP) No. 47 of 2011. Grievance of
WP/3605/2014
2
the petitioner is that the said Revision filed by the respondent / management has been allowed and the Industrial Court has quantified backwages for an amount of Rs.60,000/- for the entire period from termination dated 13.11.2000 till the date of reinstatement dated 8.7.2009.
WP/3605/2014
3
petitioner was dismissed in default on 21.1.2003. Naturally, there was no interim order in existence ever since the dismissal of the complaint in default. The Labour Court restored the Complaint on 4.7.2008, which is after a period of almost 5 years and 6 months. Pursuant thereto, the complaint was allowed by the judgment of the Labour Court dated 10.8.2011 directing the respondent to pay backwages from the date of dismissal till the reinstatement of the petitioner.
WP/3605/2014
4
decided the complaint much earlier. For this period of the delay caused, the respondent cannot be held responsible. The Industrial Court has granted an amount of Rs.60,000/- by quantifying compensation in lieu of backwages for the period 30.11.2000 till 8.7.2009.
13. Rule is discharged. No order as to costs.
( RAVINDRA V. GHUGE, J. )
akl/d
2 issues framed by the court
Whether the Industrial Court committed any error in quantifying backwages for a period of delay caused by the petitioner's inaction.
Whether the High Court should interfere with the Industrial Court's order allowing the revision filed by the respondent.
Sow. Mangal Dhanraj More
The Managing Director, Indira Sahakari Soot Girni Maryadit
RAVINDRA V. GHUGE J
As recorded by the court registry
Judgements on the same questions, provisions and authorities, from every court
