Partly allowed

The Director General Water and Land Management Institute Kanchanwadi v. Sushilabai Bhagwan Pankhede

Bombay HC4 Nov 2020RA/74/2020

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

Holiday-wage claims prompted partial review relief. The court rejected review concerning 37 workers and permitted conditional withdrawal. It required the remaining 118 workers to pursue individual adjudication before the Labour Court, temporarily preserved their deposits, and disposed of their withdrawal application as infructuous. Two officers were absolved of additional-interest liability.

What did the court decide?

Conditional withdrawal allowed for 37 workers; deposits for 118 workers temporarily preserved subject to Labour Court claims; two officers absolved of additional-interest liability.

The Director General Water and Land Management… — Labour and Industrial Disputes | Bombay HC (2020)

¶1

¶2

901ca6480o20group

¶3

IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY BENCH AT AURANGABAD

¶4

CIVIL APPLICATION NO.6480/2020

¶5

NATHA BHIMRAO MOTE AND OTHERS

¶6

¶7

THE DIRECTOR GENERAL, WATER AND LAND MANAGEMENT INSTITUTE, KANCHANWADI

¶8

WITH

¶9

CIVIL APPLICATION NO.3447/2020

¶10

INDUBAI RAMESH THORAT AND OTHERS

¶11

¶12

THE DIRECTOR GENERAL, WATER AND LAND MANAGEMENT INSTITUTE, KANCHANWADI

¶13

WITH

¶14

REVIEW APPLICATION NO.67/2020

¶15

THE DIRECTOR GENERAL

¶16

WATER AND LAND MANAGEMENT INSTITUTE

¶17

KANCHANWADI

¶18

¶19

RAYBHAN CHANDRABHAN SHELKE

¶20

WITH

¶21

REVIEW APPLICATION NO.68/2020

¶22

THE DIRECTOR GENERAL WATER AND LAND MANAGEMENT INSTITUTE KANCHANWADI

¶23

¶24

INDUBAI RAMESH THORAT

¶25

WITH

¶26

REVIEW APPLICATION NO.69/2020

¶27

THE DIRECTOR GENERAL WATER AND LAND MANAGEMENT INSTITUTE KANCHANWADI

RAMESH DEVRAO THORAT

WITH

REVIEW APPLICATION NO.70/2020

¶32

THE DIRECTOR GENERAL, WATER AND LAND MANAGEMENT INSTITUTE, KANCHANWADI

901ca6480o20group

SURESH DATTU MUNGSE

WITH

REVIEW APPLICATION NO.71/2020 THE DIRECTOR GENERAL, WATER AND LAND MANAGEMENT INSTITUTE, KANCHANWADI

BABAN MHASU SURADE

WITH

REVIEW APPLICATION NO.72/2020 THE DIRECTOR GENERAL,

¶43

WATER AND LAND MANAGEMENT INSTITUTE

KANCHANWADI

SURESH DAMODAR GUND

THROUGH LRS MEERABAI DAMODAR GUND

¶48

WITH

¶49

REVIEW APPLICATION NO.73/2020 THE DIRECTOR GENERAL,

¶50

WATER AND LAND MANAGEMENT INSTITUTE

¶51

KANCHANWADI

¶52

¶53

PRAUAGBAI TUKARAM SAWANT

¶54

WITH

¶55

REVIEW APPLICATION NO.74/2020 THE DIRECTOR GENERAL,

¶56

WATER AND LAND MANAGEMENT INSTITUTE

¶57

KANCHANWADI

¶58

¶59

SUSHILABAI BHAGWAN PANKHEDE

¶60

WITH

¶61

REVIEW APPLICATION NO.75/2020 THE DIRECTOR GENERAL,

¶62

WATER AND LAND MANAGEMENT INSTITUTE

¶63

KANCHANWADI

¶64

¶65

PRABHAT PUNJAJI SALVE

¶66

THROUGH LRS SAVITA PUNJAJI SALVE

901ca6480o20group

WITH

REVIEW APPLICATION NO.76/2020 THE DIRECTOR GENERAL, WATER AND LAND MANAGEMENT INSTITUTE KANCHANWADI

¶71

¶72

SHESHRAO DHANSING ADE

¶73

WITHY

¶74

REVIEW APPLICATION NO.77/2020 THE DIRECTOR GENERAL,

¶75

WATER AND LAND MANAGEMENT INSTITUTE

KANCHANWADI

TATYARAO MATHU PAWAR

WITH

REVIEW APPLICATION NO.78/2020 THE DIRECTOR GENERAL, WATER AND LAND MANAGEMENT INSTITUTE KANCHANWADI

¶81

¶82

ASHOK CHAMBATRAO KHADKE THROUGH LRS KIRAN ASHOK KHADKE

¶83

WITH

¶84

REVIEW APPLICATION NO.79/2020 THE DIRECTOR GENERAL, WATER AND LAND MANAGEMENT INSTITUTE, KANCHANWADI

¶85

¶86

KAMALBAI MUKUNDRAO MISAL

¶87

WITH

¶88

REVIEW APPLICATION NO.80/2020

¶89

THE DIRECTOR GENERAL, WATER AND LAND MANAGEMENT INSTITUTE, KANCHANWADI

¶90

¶91

ASRABAI DAVRAO SUCHLADE

¶92

WITH

¶93

REVIEW APPLICATION NO.81/2020 THE DIRECTOR GENERAL,

¶94

¶95

901ca6480o20group

¶96

WATER AND LAND MANAGEMENT INSTITUTE KANCHANWADI

¶97

¶98

SHAIKH RAFIQ SHAIKH TAMIJODIN

¶99

WITH

¶100

REVIEW APPLICATION NO.82/2020 THE DIRECTOR GENERAL,

¶101

WATER AND LAND MANAGEMENT INSTITUTE

¶102

KANCHANWADI

¶103

¶104

PRAKASH RAMBHAU KHARBE

¶105

WITH

¶106

REVIEW APPLICATION NO.83/2020 THE DIRECTOR GENERAL,

¶107

WATER AND LAND MANAGEMENT INSTITUTE KANCHANWADI

¶108

¶109

BHAURAO BHIKAJI SOLANKAR THROUGH LRS KAMALBAI BHAURAO SOLANKAR

¶110

WITH

¶111

REVIEW APPLICATION NO.84/2020 THE DIRECTOR GENERAL,

¶112

WATER AND LAND MANAGEMENT INSTITUTE

¶113

KANCHANWADI

¶114

¶115

DATTATRAY DYANDEV MUTEKAR

¶116

WITH

¶117

REVIEW APPLICATION NO.85/2020 THE DIRECTOR GENERAL ,

¶118

WATER AND LAND MANAGEMENT INSTITUTE

KANCHANWADI

SAYRABI RAZZAK BAIG

WITH

REVIEW APPLICATION NO.86/2020

¶124

THE DIRECTOR GENERAL,

¶125

WATER AND LAND MANAGEMENT INSTITUTE KANCHANWADI

¶126

¶127

901ca6480o20group

¶128

VS YASHODABAI DATTU KSHIRSAGAR

¶129

WITH

¶130

REVIEW APPLICATION NO.87/2020 THE DIRECTOR GENERAL,

¶131

WATER AND LAND MANAGEMENT INSTITUTE KANCHANWADI

ASHOK ANANDRAO AHIRE

WITH

REVIEW APPLICATION NO.88/2020 THE DIRECTOR GENERAL, WATER AND LAND MANAGEMENT INSTITUTE

¶136

KANCHANWADI

¶137

¶138

CHANDRABHAN KISHAN PAGARE

¶139

THROUGH LRS DWARKABAI CHANDRAHAN PAGARE

¶140

WITH

¶141

REVIEW APPLICATION NO.89/2020 THE DIRECTOR GENERAL, WATER AND LAND MANAGEMENT INSTITUTE

¶142

KANCHANWADI

¶143

¶144

GANGAHAR BAPURAO SATHE

¶145

THROUGH LRS SUMAN GANGADHAR SATHE

¶146

WITH

¶147

REVIEW APPLICATION NO.90/2020 THE DIRECTOR GENERAL,

¶148

WATER AND LAND MANAGEMENT INSTITUTE

KANCHANWADI

BHARAT ASARAM INGLE

WITH

REVIEW APPLICATION NO.91/2020

¶154

THE DIRECTOR GENERAL,

¶155

WATER AND LAND MANAGEMENT INSTITUTE KANCHANWADI

901ca6480o20group

ANJANABAI DADARAO KALE

¶160

WITH

¶161

REVIEW APPLICATION NO.92/2020 THE DIRECTOR GENERAL, WATER AND LAND MANAGEMENT INSTITUTE

¶162

KANCHANWADI

¶163

¶164

SAYYED GANI SAYYED HUSSAIN

¶165

WITH

¶166

REVIEW APPLICATION NO.93/2020 THE DIRECTOR GENERAL,

¶167

WATER AND LAND MANAGEMENT INSTITUTE

¶168

KANCHANWADI

¶169

¶170

INDUBAI TUKARAM THORAT

¶171

WITH

¶172

REVIEW APPLICATION NO.94/2020 THE DIRECTOR GENERAL,

¶173

WATER AND LAND MANAGEMENT INSTITUTE

¶174

KANCHANWADI

¶175

¶176

DEEPAK SURYAKANT SARAF

¶177

WITH

¶178

REVIEW APPLICATION NO.95/2020 THE DIRECTOR GENERAL,

¶179

WATER AND LAND MANAGEMENT INSTITUTE

KANCHANWADI

SANJAY NATHUJI INGLE

WITH

REVIEW APPLICATION NO.96/2020 THE DIRECTOR GENERAL,

¶185

WATER AND LAND MANAGEMENT INSTITUTE

¶186

KANCHANWADI

¶187

¶188

BHANUDAS SARJERAO SAWANT THROUGH LRS RUKMINBAI BHANUDAS SAWANT

901ca6480o20group

WITH

REVIEW APPLICATION NO.97/2020 THE DIRECTOR GENERAL, WATER AND LAND MANAGEMENT INSTITUTE

¶193

KANCHANWADI

¶194

¶195

EKNATH PUNJARAM WAGHMODE

¶196

WITH

¶197

REVIEW APPLICATION NO.98/2020 THE DIRECTOR GENERAL, WATER AND LAND MANAGEMENT INSTITUTE

¶198

KANCHANWADI

¶199

¶200

PANDURANG MURLIDHAR GUND

¶201

WITH

¶202

REVIEW APPLICATION NO.99/2020 THE DIRECTOR GENERAL, WATER AND LAND MANAGEMENT INSTITUTE

¶203

KANCHANWADI

¶204

¶205

WAMAN BHIMRAO BIRADAR THROUGH LRS NANDA BHIMRAO BIRADAR

¶206

WITH

¶207

REVIEW APPLICATION NO.100/2020 THE DIRECTOR GENERAL, WATER AND LAND MANAGEMENT INSTITUTE, KANCHANWADI

¶208

¶209

SAHEBRAO KHANDUJI TARANGE THROUGH LRS PADMABAI SAHEBRAO TARANGE

¶210

WITH

¶211

REVIEW APPLICATION NO.101/2020 THE DIRECTOR GENERAL WATER AND LAND MANAGEMENT INSTITUTE, KANCHANWADI

¶212

¶213

BHAGWAN APPAJI PANKHEDE

¶214

WITH

¶215

REVIEW APPLICATION NO.102/2020 THE DIRECTOR GENERAL WATER AND LAND

¶216

¶217

901ca6480o20group

¶218

MANAGEMENT INSTITUTE KANCHANWADI

¶219

¶220

CHANDRAPRABHU BHIKAJI HUSE

¶221

WITH

¶222

REVIEW APPLICATION NO.171/2020 THE DIRECTOR GENERAL WATER AND LAND MANAGEMENT INSTITUTE KANCHANWADI

¶223

¶224

GUFABAI @ GUMPHABAI DAULAT KAKDE

¶225

Advocate for the Workers : Shri Joshi Prabhakar K. and Shri V.S.Khairnar

¶226

Advocate for the Management/ Walmi : Shri V. J. Dixit, Senior Counsel h/f Shri S.V. Dixit

¶227

CORAM: RAVINDRA V. GHUGE, J.

¶228

DATE :- 04^th November, 2020

¶229

Per Court:

¶230

These Review Applications are filed by the original petitioner/ Management, Water and Land Management Institute (WALMI), Kanchanwadi, Paithan Road, Aurangabad, in Writ Petition No.2827/2019 and other connected writ petitions, seeking review of the order dated 26.07.2019.

¶231

Civil Application Nos.6480/2020 and 3447/2020 have been filed by the workers, who are beneficiaries of the order dated 26.07.2019 delivered in a group of Writ Petition No. 2827/2019 and connected petitions, seeking withdrawal of amounts.

¶232

9 901ca6480o20group

¶233

At the outset, it needs to be noted that 141 workers, claiming

¶234

payment of unpaid wages for the work performed on State and National holidays, had approached the learned Division Bench of this Court in Writ Petition No.11889/2015. By order dated 14.09.2016, this Writ Petition was disposed off since these workers had a statutory efficacious remedy under Section 33-C(2) of the Industrial Disputes Act, 1947 and for which, they were granted liberty to approach the Labour Court at Aurangabad. Pursuant to this order, 46 workers out of 141, approached the Labour Court under Section 33-(C)(2). Nine applications were dismissed in default and it is informed by the learned advocate for the workers that their restoration applications are pending before the Labour Court. In 37 applications, the Labour Court delivered identical judgments on 23.04.2018 granting the claims of these 37 workers and crystallizing their claims for an amount of Rs.1 lac each towards the unpaid wages for having worked on the State and National holidays in between 01.10.1995 till 01.12.2009. Interest at the rate of 10% per annum was also granted on the said amount.

¶235

By these Review Applications, the Management contends that there are errors committed by this Court in appreciating the record available before it in it's supervisory jurisdiction under Article 227 of the Constitution of India, notwithstanding the fact that the petitions filed by the Management/ Walmi were partly allowed to the extent of reducing the

¶236

¶237

901ca6480o20group

¶238

amount from Rs.1 lac to Rs.97,000/- per worker and the interest amount having been reduced from 10% per annum to 7% per annum.

¶239

The grounds put forth by the Review Petitioner/ Management are reproduced verbatim hereunder :-

¶240

"I. The Hon'ble High Court ought to have considered contentions of applicant in respect of inapplicability of public holidays and other holidays as applicable to other employees during period as claimed by respondent in her Application i.e. from 01.10.1995 to 01.12.2009. Therefore, there was no question of respondent working on public holiday and payment of remuneration of such alleged work on public holiday.

¶241

II. Hon’ble High Court ought to have appreciated that, the claim of respondent was mainly based upon Circular dated 26.11.2009 and it is stated that, said Circular dated 26.11.2009 states that, respondent is entitled for monetary benefit with retrospective effect for discharging work on public holiday. However said Circular dated 26.11.2009 itself indicates that, employees would be given benefits of public holidays and if employee is required to work on public holiday then such employee would be entitled for compensatory holiday in lieu of such holiday. Said Circular nowhere speaks of payment of any monetary compensation for work discharged on public holiday.

¶242

III. It is an error on the face of the record by not considering that, Circular dated 26.11.2009 is not retrospective in nature and said Circular has to be made applicable prospectively from 01.12.2009. As Circular is not retrospective, respondent is not entitled to claim any benefit of the Circular for the period prior to Circular is brought into effect. Therefore, claim of respondent seeking remuneration for alleged work on public holiday is not tenable and Application U/Sec. 33 (c) (1) (2) of Industrial Disputes Act ought to have been dismissed.

¶243

IV. It is an error on the face of the record by not considering that, respondent became permanent w.e.f. 01.10.1995.

¶244

¶245

901ca6480o20group

¶246

Such employees were not having benefit of public holidays and were given weekly holiday as per circular dated 26.04.1996. Therefore, Establishment Committee of applicant took decision on 15.09.2009 to give benefit of public holiday as per Resolution passed by Governing Council of applicant on 25.08.1995 and it was also decided that, if any employee is required to work on public holiday then such employee would be entitled for compensatory holiday alternate compensatory holiday. In view of such Resolution, passed by Governing Council and Establishment Committee, Circular dated 26.11.2009 was issued w.e.f. 01.12.2009. As the date of giving effect to such Circular is also stated in Circular itself, such Circular could not have been considered as retrospective in application.

¶247

V. Hon’ble High Court ought to have appreciated that, Circular dated 26.04.1996 of applicant makes it clear that, Watchmen will get only one weekly holiday and they are not entitled for other public holidays. Therefore, employees discharging work of Watchman cannot claim benefit of public holidays.

¶248

VI. Hon’ble High Court ought to have appreciated that, Circular dated 26.04.1996 of applicant specifies that employees who are discharging field work would not be entitled for public holidays and are entitled for holidays as referred in said circular.

¶249

VII. It is an error apparent on the face of the record by not considering that, claim of respondent was not supported by any documentary evidence and even no record was produced before Learned Labour Court and Hon’ble High Court indicating alleged work on permissible public holiday by respondent. Therefore, in absence of any such material, no inference could have been drawn to presume that, respondent has worked on permissible public holidays and entitled for any compensation.

¶250

VIII. It is an error apparent on the face of the record in not considering that, the Judgment and Order passed by Learned Labour Court nowhere takes into consideration that, respondent employee has not pleaded about working on weekly holidays or rejection of any compensatory holiday for working on weekly holiday.

¶251

IX. It may be noted that administrative officer on 05.12.2011

¶252

¶253

901ca6480o20group

¶254

issued circular to all officers seeking information of public holidays and financial burden for making payment of monetary remuneration for work discharged on public holidays. Further issued letter on 20.04.2012 to accounts officer by misinterpreting circular that benefit of public holidays is to be given from 01.10.1995 and therefore, amount be determined. On 30.04.2012, accounts officer pointed out that if employee works on public holiday, compensatory holiday is permissible. If such compensatory holiday is not utilized within 1 year or if such holidays exceeds more than three then such compensatory holiday gets cancelled. Therefore, no remuneration is payable and entire salary of month is paid to employees at relevant time. Accounts officer further sought guidance about provision in government resolution about payment of remuneration and rate of calculation of such remuneration. In reply to this, administrative officer asked to divide monthly salary by 30 and to determine amount payable for a day and asked to calculate accordingly. No rule was referred in said noting. This discloses manner of vague calculations which are not supported by any legal provisions of law referred in letter dated 25.05.2012.

¶255

X. It may be noted that, calculation of Rs.1.5 crore is based upon calculation of public holidays, local holidays and holidays of 2nd and 4th Saturday as applicable to other employees. However, circular dated 26.04.1996 was not taken into consideration for considering entitlement of respondent employee and erroneous assessment was made. Therefore, such erroneous assessment of public holidays and remuneration for such holidays ought not to have been relied.

¶256

XI. It is an error apparent on the face of the record in not considering that, the Judgment and Order passed by Learned Labour Court is mainly based upon Letter dated 25.05.2012, issued by Administrative Officer of the applicant. Such Letter is in the nature of Proposal seeking Approval of Government for payment of compensation for alleged work discharged on public holidays by respondent. However, it is not brought to the Notice of this Hon’ble Court that, such proposal was rejected by State Government on 31.10.2012. It is stated in the said Letter

¶257

¶258

901ca6480o20group

¶259

that, no such provision is available in Maharashtra Civil Services (Leave) Rules 1982 to give any monetary remuneration to employee for work discharged on public holidays. Therefore, Letter dated 25.05.2012 ought not to have been relied and, therefore, Impugned Order based upon such Letter deserves to be quashed and set-aside. XII. It may be noted that, the Hon’ble Court ought to have appreciated that, Letter dated 25.05.2012 was seeking permission of State Government to make provision for payment of monetary compensation for work discharged by employees on public holidays. Such proposal cannot be said to be decision of applicant or acceptance of claim by applicant. It is mere proposal based upon representation by an organization seeking such benefit. It only refers that, approx. amount would be Rs.1.5 Crore but in fact such amount was not based upon any factual assessment of alleged work discharged by respondent and similarly situated employees on public holidays and such assessment is vague and not based upon record of actual work. Therefore, Letter dated 25.05.2012, issued by Administrative Officer ought not to have been relied to adjudicate claim of respondent.

¶260

XIII. It is an error apparent on the face of the record in not appreciating that, the claim seeking monetary remuneration for work discharged on public holidays was made in the year 2016 and considering Provisions of Limitation Act no claim ought to have been entertained by Learned Labour Court after lapse of three years from the date of entitlement. Considering afterthought and belated Application by respondent, no amount could have been directed to be paid to such employee.

¶261

XIV. The Hon’ble High Court ought to have appreciated that, payment of monetary remuneration to employees which is not provided in any of service rules and regulations amounts to making new policy and such policy decision was required to be taken by governing council of applicant. Governing Council of applicant never took any decision of making payment to employees in respect of remuneration for work discharged on public holidays. Therefore, proposal sent by Administrative Officer without getting any sanction from Governing Council is of no significance and cannot be considered to be valid proposal

¶262

¶263

901ca6480o20group

¶264

in the eyes of law, which was relied by Ld. Labour Court for accepting claim of respondent.

¶265

XV. The Hon’ble High Court ought to have considered that, the Learned Labour Court failed to appreciate effect of Circular dated 26.11.2009 as the said Circular nowhere enables employee to claim monetary remuneration of earlier public holidays. Even Learned Labour Court did not consider any of the submissions of applicant as Administrative Officer of applicant submitted Letter dated 25.05.2012.

¶266

XVI. The Hon’ble High Court ought to have considered that, Learned Labour Court erred in holding that, applicant ought to have produced record of employees, who have worked on public holidays. Learned Labour Court ought to have appreciated that, burden to prove that, respondent-employee has worked on public holidays was on respondent and not on the applicant. Respondent was required to discharge such burden and in absence of any material produced on record in discharge of such burden, claim of employee on the basis of assumption ought not to have been allowed.

¶267

XVII. The Hon’ble High Court ought to have appreciated that, all 155 employees were not working on same post and, therefore, equal division of amount amongst all the 155 employees is incorrect and not based upon any factual assessment and record.

¶268

XVIII. Hon’ble High Court failed to appreciate that, respondent employee has not at all claimed monetary remuneration on the basis of any provision of law and reliance placed upon, Circular dated 26.11.2009 and Letter dated 25.05.2012, issued by Administrative Officer of applicant cannot confer any right in favour of respondent employee to claim monetary remuneration. In absence of any such right, Application U/Sec. 33 (c) (1) (2) itself was not tenable and ought to have been dismissed in limine.

¶269

XIX. It may be noted that, since the record was old, it could not be produced before Hon’ble Court. However no public holiday was available to respondent employee till 01.12.2009 and only one weekly holiday was available, which was utilized by such employee. Therefore, there was no question of maintaining any independent record of respondent employee in respect of alleged work on public

¶270

¶271

901ca6480o20group

¶272

holidays. As far as Muster of the employee is concerned, entire record was not available in respect of all the employees, but applicant could get record of some of the employees, which indicates that, those employees have given weekly holiday and, therefore, such employees are not eligible for claiming any monetary compensation for alleged work discharged on public holidays.

¶273

XX. It is an error apparent on the face of the record in not considering that, the Judgment and Order passed by Learned Labour Court failed to appreciate government resolution dated 12.09.1980 contemplates only alternate compensatory holiday if any employee discharges work on public holiday and also provides limitation of 1 year for claiming such compensatory holiday. It is further provided in the said government resolution that no monetary remuneration would be payable for such compensatory holiday.

¶274

XXI. It is an error apparent on the face of the record by that, this Hon’ble Court granted benefit in favour of 118 employees, who are similarly situated without considering that, those employees have not at all claimed any monetary compensation before Learned Labour Court and such conduct of not claiming amount by the employees would amount to acceptance of their ineligibility to receive such monetary compensation."

¶275

I have heard the learned senior advocate on behalf of the Review Petitioner/ Walmi for almost 45 minutes and the learned advocate for the workers.

¶276

While considering the submissions of the learned Senior Advocate and the grounds formulated in the Review Applications reproduced above, I deem it appropriate to refer to the judgment of the Honourable Supreme Court delivered in the case of Lily Thomas vs. Union of India, AIR 2000 SC 1650 , wherein, the Honourable Supreme

¶277

16 901ca6480o20group

¶278

Court has cast fetters upon the High Courts while hearing the review

¶279

petitions, which read thus :-

¶280

“52. The dictionary meaning of the word “review”, “the act of looking, offer something again with a view to correction or improvement". It cannot be denied that the review is the creation of a statute. This Court in Patel Narshi Thakershi v. Pradyumansinghji Arjunshinghji, AIR 1970 SC 1273 held that the power of review is not an inherent power. It must be conferred by law either specifically or by necessary implication. The review is also not an appeal in disguise. It cannot be denied that justice is a virtue which transcends all barriers and the rules or procedures or technicalities of law cannot stand in the way of administration of justice. Law has to bend before justice. If the Court finds that the error pointed out in the review petition was under a mistake and the earlier judgment would not have been passed but for erroneous assumption which in fact did not exist and its perpetration shall result in miscarriage of justice nothing would preclude the Court from rectifying the error. This Court in S. Nagaraj V. State of Karnataka, 1993 Supp(4) SCC 595 held :

¶281

“Review literally and even judicially means reexamination or re-consideration. Basic philosophy inherent in it is the universal acceptance of human fallibility. Yet in the realm of law the Courts and even the statutes lean strongly in favour of finality of decision legally and properly made. Exceptions both statutorily and judicially have been carved out to correct accidental mistakes or miscarriage of justice. Even when there was no statutory provision and no rules were framed by the highest Court indicating the circumstances in which it could rectify its order the Courts culled out such power to avoid abuse of process or miscarriage of justice. In Prithwi Chand Lal Choudhary v. Sukhraj Rai, AIR 1941 FC 1 that Court observed that even though no rules had been framed permitting the highest Court to review its order yet it was available on the limited and narrow ground developed by the Privy Council and the House of Lords. The Court approved the principle laid down by the Privy Council in

¶282

¶283

901ca6480o20group

¶284

Rajunder Narain Rae v. Bijai Govind Singh (1836) 1 Moo PC 117 that an order made by the Court has final and could not be altered.

¶285

“.........nevertheless, if by misprison in embodying the judgments, by errors have been introduced, these Courts possess, by Common Law, the same power which the Courts of record and statute have of rectifying the mistakes which have crept in ..... The House of Lords exercises a similar power or rectifying mistakes made in drawing up its own judgments, and this Court must possess the same authority. The Lords have however gone a step further, and have corrected mistakes introduced through in inadvertence in the details of judgments; or have supplied manifest defects in order to enable the decrees to be enforced, or have added explanatory matter, or have reconciled inconsistencies. Basis for exercise of the power was stated in the same decision as under :

¶286

‘It is impossible to doubt that the indulgence extended in such cases is mainly owing to the natural desire prevailing to prevent irremediable injustice being done by a Court of last resort, where by some accident, without any blame, the party has not been heard and an order has been inadvertently made as if the party had been heard.’

¶287

Rectification of an order thus stems from the fundamental principle that justice is above all, it is exercised to remove the error and not for disturbing finality. When the Constitution was framed the substantive power to rectify or recall the order passed by this Court was specifically provided by Art. 137 of the Constitution. Our Constitution makers who had the practical wisdom to visualise the efficacy of such provision expressly conferred the substantive power to review any judgment or order by Art. 137 of the Constitution. And Cl. (c) or Art. 145 permitted this Court to frame rules as to the conditions subject to which any judgment or order may be reviewed. In exercise of this power Order 40 had been framed empowering this Court to review an order in civil proceedings on grounds analogous to Order 47 Rule 1 of the Civil Procedure Code. The expression, ‘for any other sufficient reason’ in the clause has been given an expanded meaning and a decree or order passed under misapprehension of true state of circumstances has been

¶288

¶289

901ca6480o20group

¶290

held to be sufficient ground to exercise the power. Apart from Order 40, Rule 1 of the Supreme Court Rules this Court has the Inherent power to make such orders as may be necessary in the interest in justice or to prevent the abuse of process of Court. The Court is thus not precluded from recalling or reviewing its own order if it is satisfied that it is necessary to do so for sake of justice.”

¶291

The mere fact that two views on the same subject are possible is no ground to review the earlier judgment passed by a Bench of the same strength.”

¶292

“55. It follows, therefore, that the power of review can be exercised for correction of a mistake and not to substitute a view. Such powers can be exercised within the limits of the statute dealing with exercise of power. The review cannot be treated an appeal in disguise. The mere possibility of two views on the subject is not a ground for review. Once a review petition is dismissed no further petition of review can be entertained. The rule of law of following the practice of the binding nature of the larger Benches and not taking different views by the Benches of co-ordinated jurisdiction of equal strength has to be followed and practiced. However, this Court in exercise of its powers under Art. 136 or Art. 32 of the Constitution and upon satisfaction that the earlier judgments have resulted in deprivation of fundamental rights of a citizen or rights created under any other statute, can take a different view notwithstanding the earlier judgment.”

¶293

8. In Kamlesh Verma vs. Mayawati and others, 2013 ALL SCR

¶294

3411 , the Honourable Supreme Court dealt with the review jurisdiction

¶295

and it's scope and came to the conclusion that a review would be maintainable for the following reasons :-

¶296

"(i) Discovery of new and important matter or evidence which, after the exercise of due diligence, was not within knowledge of the petitioner or could not be produced by him;

¶297

¶298

901ca6480o20group

¶299

(ii) Mistake or error apparent on the face of the record; (iii) Any other sufficient reason."

¶300

9. In Kamlesh Verma (supra) , the Honourable Supreme Court

¶301

also culled out the principles as to when a review petition would not be

¶302

maintainable and the same read thus :-

¶303

"(i) A repetition of old and overruled argument is not enough to reopen concluded adjudications.

¶304

(ii) Minor mistakes of inconsequential import.

¶305

(iii) Review proceedings cannot be equated with the original hearing of the case.

¶306

(iv) Review is not maintainable unless the material error, manifest on the face of the order, undermines its soundness or results in miscarriage of justice.

¶307

(v) A review is by no means an appeal in disguise whereby an erroneous decision is reheard and corrected but lies only for patent error.

¶308

(vi) The mere possibility of two views on the subject cannot be a ground for review.

¶309

(vii) The error apparent on the face of the record should not be an error which has to be fished out and searched.

¶310

(viii) The appreciation of evidence on record is fully within the domain of the appellate court, it cannot be permitted to be advanced in the review petition.

¶311

(ix) Review is not maintainable when the same relief sought at the time of arguing the main matter had been negatived."

¶312

Considering the above, I have no doubt in my mind that if any

¶313

material placed before the Labour Court was not properly considered by it and by this Court, when it delivered the order on 26.07.2019, which has led to an error apparent on the face of the order, I could consider the grounds raised by the Review Petitioner/ Management. However, I find

¶314

20 901ca6480o20group

¶315

from the judgment of the Labour Court that the witness of the Management Smt.Nidhi Narendra Gajbe has truthfully admitted in her cross-examination that the Management had approached the State Government for financial assistance of Rs.1.50 crore to be paid to each of such 155 workers, prior to the judgment of the Labour Court dated 23.04.2018. In such proposal forwarded to the State Government, the Management of Walmi had conceded that these workers had worked on holidays in between 01.10.1995 to 01.12.2009, which includes the State and National holidays and on occasions even on weekly holidays. The Regional Officer of the Walmi conducted a detailed assessment and prepared the statistical data which indicated that, on the one hand, these workers worked on holidays and on the other hand, were not granted alternative holidays (बदललससटल) or the payment of wages for having worked on such holidays. The said witness did not suppress the information from the Labour Court. Consequentially, the Labour Court analyzed her deposition in it's judgment.

¶316

Section 33-C(2) of the Industrial Disputes Act, 1947 reads as

¶317

under :-

¶318

"33-C. Recovery of money due from an employer :- (2) Where any workman is entitled to receive from the employer any money or any benefit which is capable of being computed in terms of money and if any question arises as to the amount of money due or as to the amount at which such benefit should be computed, then the question may, subject to any rules that may be made

¶319

¶320

901ca6480o20group

¶321

under this Act, be decided by such Labour Court as may be specified in this behalf by the appropriate Government within a period not exceeding three months: Provided that where the presiding officer of a Labour Court considers it necessary or expedient so to do, he may, for reasons to be recorded in writing, extend such period by such further period as he may think fit."

¶322

It is the contention of the Management/ Walmi that they had prepared a scheme of granting weekly holidays to certain daily wagers vide Government Resolution dated 12.09.1980, wherein, it was decided that those workers who worked on a holiday would be entitled for an alternative holiday, which is normally termed as "compensatory holiday" in the industrial and labour sector and that, such holidays should be availed off by the said workers within one year from having worked on a holiday. No payment was to be made to such workers for having worked on holidays.

¶323

In this backdrop, I called upon the litigating parties to point out from the oral and documentary evidence recorded before the Labour Court as to whether, the Management/ Walmi has placed any material before the Court, in the backdrop of their admission that the workers had worked on holidays and were entitled for payment, to indicate that these workers were granted such compensatory holidays and that they have availed off such holidays as a consequence of which they would not be entitled for any payment thereof. The learned Senior Advocate, on

¶324

22 901ca6480o20group

¶325

instructions and the record available before him, submits that it was the obligation cast upon the workers to avail off compensatory holidays within one year and if they did not avail off such holidays, it should be deemed that they have acquiesced their right to a compensatory holiday.

¶326

I find that this argument to be unacceptable for the reason that the litigants before this Court were hand-to-mouth and were not able to have two square meals a day. They were daily wage labourers and they were willing to work on all such days on which the employer would allot them work, only to ensure that they could feed their family/children by earning daily wages. They had zero bargaining power and were at the mercy of the Management. If the Management banks upon the Government Resolution dated 12.09.1980 then, it is the duty of the Management to ensure that compensatory holidays are given to those workers, who had worked on holidays when it was the policy of the Management that they would not be paid any wages, much less extra wages for having worked on holidays. It is unacceptable that the workers should be made to work on holidays and should not be paid wages coupled with an obligation that if they do not opt to take a compensatory holiday, their right would cease to exist.

¶327

The learned Senior Advocate has then turned to the letter dated 25.05.2012 written by the Administrative Officer, Walmi to the Principal Secretary, Irrigation Project and Development, Irrigation

¶328

23 901ca6480o20group

¶329

Department, State of Maharashtra, which is the basis on which the right is accrued to these workers. The contention of the learned Senior Advocate is that though in this communication there is a semblance of the Management accepting the claims of the workers, it was purely a proposal sent to the Government, which the Government has subsequently rejected. It is, therefore, canvassed that once the Government has rejected the said proposal, the workers have no right.

¶330

I find it legally unacceptable that on the one hand, the Management makes the workers work on holidays in the backdrop of the Government Resolution dated 12.09.1980 and on the other hand, the State Government refuses payment of wages for the work performed. Once the Government had formulated it's policy to give compensatory holidays, it was an obligation of the Management to prepare their calender in such a way that all such daily wagers, who worked on daily wages, would be granted compensatory holidays within a year. It is unconceivable to exploit the daily wagers by canvassing that though they have worked on holidays

¶331

they would not be entitled for wages and if they do not opt for compensatory holidays voluntarily, their rights would be extinguished after one year.

¶332

The learned advocate for the workers has placed reliance upon Kamaljit Singh vs. Sarabjit Singh, (2014) 16 SCC 472 , to contend that the doctrine of estoppel would prevent the Review Petitioner/

¶333

24 901ca6480o20group

¶334

Management from taking a stand that these workers were not entitled for wages because of the Government Resolution dated 12.09.1980. Had that been so, the Management should not have communicated vide letter dated 25.05.2012 to the Government that these workers were entitled for such payments and the sanction should be granted for releasing the funds. It has been held in Kamaljit Singh (supra) as under :-

¶335

"10. ........ It is trite that the doctrine of estoppel is steeped in the principles of equity and good conscience. Equity will not allow a person to say one thing at one time and the opposite of it another time. It would estop him from denying his previous assertion, act, conduct or representation to say something contrary to what was implied in the transaction under which he obtained the benefit of being let in possession of the property to be enjoyed by him as a tenant.

¶336

11. Lord Edward Coke, Chief Justice of the King's Bench and 17th Century English Jurist explains "estoppel" thus: “Cometh of the French Word ‘estoupe’, from where

¶337

the English word stopped; and it is called an estoppels or conclusion, because a man’s own act or acceptance stoppeth or closet up his mouth to allege or plead the truth.” [Co. Litt. 352a]

¶338

12. Law Lexicon (Second Edition, Page 656) defines "estoppel" in the following words: “An Estoppel is an admission, or something which the law treats as an equivalent to an admission, of so high and conclusive a nature that any one who is affected by it is not permitted to contradict it.” [11th Edn p. 744 in the note to the Dutchess of Kingston’s case] “An admission or determination under circumstances of such solemnity that the law will not allow the fact so admitted to be questioned by the parties or their privies.” “The preclusion of a person from asserting a fact, by previous conduct inconsistent therewith, on his own part, or on the part of those under whom he claims.”

¶339

13. Black’s Law Dictionary (9th Edn., page 629) describes

901ca6480o20group

"estoppel" as :

“Estoppel :- A bar that prevents one from asserting a claim or right that contradicts what one has said or done before or what has been legally established as true.”

¶344

The learned Senior Advocate has relied upon Rajender Singh

¶345

vs. Lt. Governor, Andaman and Nicobar Islands and others, 2005 (13)

¶346

SCC 289 , in which the Honourable Supreme Court has held in paragraphs 15 and 16 as under :-

¶347

"15. We are unable to countenance the argument advanced by learned Additional Solicitor General appearing for the respondents. A careful perusal of the impugned judgment does not deal with and decide many important issues as could be seen from the grounds of review and as raised in the grounds of special leave petition/appeal. The High Court, in our opinion, is not justified in ignoring the materials on record which on proper consideration may justify the claim of the appellant. Learned counsel for the appellant has also explained to this Court as to why the appellant could not place before the Division Bench some of these documents which were not in possession of the appellant at the time of hearing of the case. The High Court, in our opinion, is not correct in overlooking the documents relied on by the appellant and the respondents. In our opinion, review jurisdiction is available in the present case since the impugned judgment is a clear case of an error apparent on the face of the record and non- consideration of relevant documents. The appellant, in our opinion, has got a strong case in their favour and if the claim of the appellant in this appeal is not countenanced, the appellant will suffer immeasurable loss and injury. Law is well-settled that the power of judicial review of its own order by the High Court inheres in every Court of plenary jurisdiction to prevent miscarriage of justice.

¶348

16. The power, in our opinion, extends to correct all errors to prevent miscarriage of justice. The courts should not

¶349

26 901ca6480o20group

¶350

hesitate to review its own earlier order when there exists an error on the face of the record and the interest of the justice so demands in appropriate cases. The grievance of the appellant is that though several vital issues were raised and documents placed, the High Court has not considered the same in its review jurisdiction. In our opinion, the High Court's order in the revision petition is not correct which really necessitates our interference."

¶351

I am in respectful agreement with the law laid down by the Honourable Supreme Court. However, the distinguishing feature in these cases is that these cases have their origin in their applications before the Labour Court and on the basis of the oral and documentary evidence recorded before the Labour Court, the applications of 37 workers were allowed since the Management had admitted that these workers had worked on holidays and were not paid their wages. I also do not find from the record, any material to indicate that these workers were granted compensatory holidays after working on holidays and as such, having availed off such compensatory holidays they would not be entitled for any payment thereof. When the Management failed to establish before the Labour Court, which is the court of record, that these workers had enjoyed compensatory holidays and were seeking payment, as if seeking double benefits, the oral submissions of the Management cannot be accepted, much less in a review petition.

¶352

In view of the above, the Review Applications to the extent

¶353

¶354

901ca6480o20group

¶355

of 37 workers, whose names are mentioned herein below, stand

¶356

rejected :-

¶357

"1) Indubai Ramesh Thorat Age 50 yrs. Occ. Service

¶358

1. Sayrabi Razzak Baig Age 63 yrs. Occ. Service/Retired

¶359

1. Chandrabhan Kisan Pagare Died Through his L.Rs. Dwarkabai Chandrabhan Pagare Age 65 yrs. Occ. Household

¶360

1. Raybhan Chandrabhan Shelke Age 64 yrs. Occ. Retired

¶361

1. Bhagwan Appaji Pankhede Age 64 yrs. Occ. Retired

¶362

1. Kamalbai Mukundrao Misal, Age 52 yrs. Occ. Service

¶363

1. Ramesh Devrao Thorat Age 54 yrs. Occ. Service

¶364

1. Dattatray Dnyandev Mutekar Age 62 yrs. Occ. Retired

¶365

1. Sayyed Gani Sayyed Hussain Age 57 yrs. Occ. Service

¶366

1. Prakash Rambhau Kharbe Age 54 yrs. Occ. Service

¶367

1. Suresh Damodar Gund Died Through his L.Rs. Meerbai Suresh Gund Age 53 yrs. Occ. Household

¶368

1. Tatyarao Mathu Pawar Age 63 yrs. Occ. Retired

¶369

¶370

901ca6480o20group

¶371

1. Gufabai @ Gumphabai Daulat Kakade Age 65 yrs. Occ. Retired

¶372

1. Ashok Champatrao Khadke Died Through his L.Rs. Smt. Kiran Ashok Khadke Age 48 yrs. Occ. Household

¶373

1. Baban Mhasu Surade Age 65 yrs. Occ. Retired

¶374

1. Pandurang Murlidhar Gund Age 57 yrs. Occ. Service

¶375

1. Bhanudas Sarjerao Sawant Died through his L.Rs. Smt. Rukminbai Bhanudas Sawant Age 57 yrs. Occ. Household.

¶376

1. Deepak Suryaknat Saraf Age 61 yrs. Occ. Retired

¶377

1. Chandraprabhu Bhikaji Huse Age 57 yrs. Occ. Service

¶378

1. Sanjay Nathuji Ingle Age 56 yrs. Occ. Service

¶379

1. Asrabai Devrao Suchlade Age 66 yrs. Occ. Retired

¶380

1. Sahebrao Khanduji Tarange Died through his L.Rs. Smt. Padminibai Sahebrao Trange Age 57 yrs. Occ. Household

¶381

1. Prayagbai Tukaram Sawant Age 64 yrs. Occ. Retired

¶382

1. Waman Bhimrao Biradar Died through his L.Rs. Smt. Nanda Waman Biradar

¶383

¶384

901ca6480o20group

¶385

Age 58 yrs. Occ. Household

¶386

1. Ashok Anandrao Ahire Died through his L.Rs. Smt. Shila Ashok Ahire Age 52 yrs. Occ. Retired

¶387

1. Shesharao Dhansing Ade Age 63 yrs. Occ. Retired

¶388

1. Anjanabai Dadarao Kale Age 65 yrs. Occ. Retired

¶389

1. Bhaurao Bhikaji Solankar Died through his L.Rs. Kamlabai Bhaurao Sonaklar Age 56 yrs. Occ. Household

¶390

1. Bharat Asaram Ingle Age 65 yrs. Occ. Retired

¶391

1. Gangadhar Bapurao Sathe Died through his L.Rs. Suman Gangadhar Sathe Age 58 yrs. Occ. Household

¶392

1. Sushilabai Bhagwan Pakhede Age 56 yrs. Occ. Service

¶393

1. Prabhat Punjaji Salve Died through his L.Rs. Smt. Savita Prabhat Salve Age 55 yrs. Occ. Household

¶394

1. Yashodabai Dattu Kishirsagar Age 66 yrs. Occ. Retired

¶395

1. Eknath Punjaram Waghmode Age 63 yrs. Occ. Retired

¶396

1. Shaikh Rafid Shaikh Tamijoddin Age 57 yrs. Occ. Service

¶397

¶398

901ca6480o20group

¶399

1. Suresh Dattu Mungse Age 63 yrs. Occ. Retired

¶400

1. Indubai Tukaram Thorat Age 65 yrs. Occ. Retired

¶401

All R/o. Walmi, Kanchanwadi, Paithan Raod, Aurangabad, Tq. & Dist. Aurangabad."

¶402

Consequentially, the above 37 workers would be entitled for withdrawal of their amounts, which they have sought by filing their Civil Application No.3447/2020. The learned Senior Advocate has strenuously opposed the withdrawal of amounts. Notwithstanding his objection, I find that the Civil Application filed by these 37 workers, deserves to be allowed for the reason that the amount has been deposited in this Court by the Management and even after the order of this Court dated 26.07.2019, these workers have not been able to receive their amounts for almost 17 months. Most of them are senior citizens and have retired from service long ago. As such, Civil Application No.3447/2020 filed by these 37 workers is allowed on the following conditions :-

¶403

(a) The above 37 applicants/ workers shall submit their latest photograph and copy of their Voter Identity Card issued by the Election Commission of India and/or copy of their Adhar Card.

¶404

(b) They shall produce their recent address proof.

901ca6480o20group

line, if any.

(d) While withdrawing the amount of Rs.97,000/- (Rupees Ninety Seven Thousand) each, they shall tender an undertaking duly identified by their advocate representing them in this matter stating therein that if the Management succeeds before the Honourable Supreme Court and it is finally concluded that these workers had no right to such amounts, they would return the said amount within eight weeks from the date of such adverse order.

¶410

The learned Senior Advocate has canvassed to the extent of the remaining 118 workers out of 155, that though this Court has taken a pragmatic view and has shown magnanimity in granting benefits to all these 155 workers, 09 workers before the Labour Court had suffered the "dismissed in default" orders and 109 workers had not approached the Labour Court at all after their joint writ petition was disposed off by the learned Division Bench of this Court granting them liberty to approach the Labour Court under Section 33-C(2). He, therefore, canvassed that as Section 33-C(2) deals with individual claims of the workers for recovery of unpaid wages from the employer, each worker will have to approach the Labour Court and the order delivered by this Court on 26.07.2019 in the group of 37 workers cases, would be an order restricted only to 37

¶411

32 901ca6480o20group

¶412

workers.

¶413

I find that the learned Senior Advocate is right in his submission as I had taken the said view to avoid multiplicity of the litigation and to avoid rigours of litigation to be suffered by the 118 workers, most of whom are senior citizens and have retired and would be required to spend on litigation.

¶414

The learned advocate for the workers submits that this Court had passed the following order with regard to the remaining 118 workers, only to avoid multiplicity of litigation and soften the sufferings of the workers :-

¶415

"16. In order to avoid multiplicity of litigation, I deem it proper to direct the petitioner to pay Rs.97,000/- to each of the remaining 118 similarly situated workers, within twelve weeks from today. This would avoid further litigation, hardships and litigation costs of the petitioner as well as the said 118 workers."

¶416

He fairly submits that 09 workers have suffered the Dismissed in Default order and their restoration applications are pending before the Labour Court and 109 workers had not approached the Labour Court at all. However, now 104 workers out of 109 are before this Court for withdrawal of the amount, this Court may grant liberty to all these 118 to approach the Labour Court within six weeks. Until then, the amount of Rs.97,000/- payable to each of such 118 workers may be preserved in this Court until the decision before the Labour Court. He tenders the names of

¶417

¶418

901ca6480o20group

¶419

104 workers out of 109, who are before this Court and who had not

¶420

approached the Labour Court and 09 workers whose cases were dismissed in default, as under :-

¶421

(a) 09 Workers, whose cases were dismissed in default:-

¶422

"1) Ganpat Laxman Ghait Age 62 yrs. Occ. Retired

¶423

1. Smt. Venubai Visram Mhaske Age 44 yrs. Occ. Service

¶424

1. Murali Bandu Solankar Age 53 yrs. Occ. Service

¶425

1. Smt. Raibai Manikrao Sarag (Died) Through her L.R. Ambadas Manikrao Sarag Age 34 yrs. Occ. Labour

¶426

1. Raosaheb Sheshrao Walunje Age 63 yrs. Occ. Retired

¶427

1. Sadiq Khairatee Baig (Died) Through his L.R. Smt. Rajiya Sadiq Baig Age 55 yrs. Occ. Housewife

¶428

1. Ramnath Bhivsan Magar Age 63 yrs. Occ. Retired

¶429

1. Baburao Ramrao Dhas Age 50 yrs. Occ. Service

¶430

1. Smt. Hirabai Asaram Mote Age 48 yrs. Occ. Service

¶431

All R/o. WALMI, Kanchanwadi, Paithan Road, Aurangabad, Tq. & District Aurangabad."

¶432

(b) The names of 104 workers who are before this Court in Civil

¶433

¶434

901ca6480o20group

¶435

Application No.6480/2020 and who have not approached the Labour Court:-

¶436

1. Natha s/o Bhimrao Mote, Age 58 years, Occu. Service.

¶437

1. Dhanpal s/o Guddusingh Chavan, Age 61 years, Occu. Retired.

¶438

1. Dnyanoba s/o Raosaheb Fasate, Age 62 years, Occu. Retired.

¶439

1. Waman s/o Ramchandra Satpute, Age 61 years, Occu. Retired.

¶440

1. Bhimrao s/o Mahadu Kakade, Age 51 years, Occu. Service.

¶441

1. Raosaheb s/o Sopanrao Gaikwad, Age 56 years, Occu. Service.

¶442

1. Harishchandra Raibhan Motichur, Age 56 years, Occu. Service.

¶443

1. Kalyan s/o Bhimrao Gadekar, Age 52 years, Occu. Service.

¶444

1. Sk. Rasheed s/o Sk. Naseer, Age 52 years, Occu. Service.

¶445

1. Sk. Rasheed s/o Sk. Kaseem, Age 58 years, Occu. Service.

¶446

1. Changdev s/o Baraku Domale, Age 54 years, Occu. Service.

¶447

1. Bhausaheb s/o Sarangdhar Devkate, (Died), Through his L.R. Smt. Meerabai w/o Bhausaheb Devkate, Age 52 years, Occu. Household.

¶448

1. Narayan s/o Baburao Shirale, Age 56 years, Occu. Service.

¶449

1. Kailas s/o Santu Giri (Died) Through his L.R. Smt. Kasabai w/o Kailas Giri Age 58 years, Occu. Household.

¶450

1. Harishchandra s/o Shankar Ahire, Age 50 years, Occu. Service.

¶451

1. Bharat s/o Madhavrao Kakade, Age 55 years, Occu. Service.

¶452

1. Saleemkhan s/o Raheemkhan, Age 61 years, Occu. Retired.

¶453

1. Madhukar s/o Sukaram Shelke,

¶454

¶455

901ca6480o20group

¶456

Age 55 years, Occu. Service.

¶457

1. Bhausaheb s/o Damodar Gund, Age 63 years, Occu. Retired.

¶458

1. Sahebrao s/o Bajirao Dale, Age 62 years, Occu. Retired.

¶459

1. Kacharu s/o Maruti Mahanoor, Age 59 years, Occu. Service.

¶460

1. Madhukar s/o Shivram Dhanedar, Age 49 years, Occu. Service.

¶461

1. Rasheed Baig s/o Razzak Baig, Age 48 years, Occu. Service.

¶462

1. Sayed Rafiq s/o Sayed Sherif, Age 48 years, Occu. Service.

¶463

1. Razzak Baig Maqbool Baig (Died) Through her L.R. Smt. Saira Baig Razzak Baig, Age 56 years, Occu. Service.

¶464

1. Dattu s/o Murlidhar Waghchoure, Age 61 years, Occu. Retired.

¶465

1. Sk. Saleemoddin Sk. Hamimoddin, Age 62 years, Occu. Retired.

¶466

1. Balaji s/o Laxman Mahajan, Age 62 years, Occu. Retired.

¶467

1. Waman s/o Shamrao Waghmode, Age 63 years, Occu. Retired.

¶468

1. Ganesh s/o Ratan Jadhav, Age 49 years, Occu. Service.

¶469

1. Bhanudas s/o Punjaram Waghmode, Age 51 years, Occu. Service.

¶470

1. Radhakishan s/o Kashinath Kolekar (Died), Through his L.R. Waman s/o Radhakishan Kolekar, Age 35 years, Occu. Labour.

¶471

1. Smt. Rajiya Manwar Baig, Age 50 years, Occu. Service.

¶472

1. Ramesh s/o Bhikaji Solankar, Age 55 years, Occu. Service.

¶473

1. Raghunath s/o Kisan Wankhede, Age 61 years, Occu. Retired.

¶474

1. Appa s/o Rangnath Gadekar, Age 54 years, Occu. Service.

¶475

1. Ashok s/o Bhagwanrao Ankushkar,

¶476

¶477

901ca6480o20group

¶478

Age 62 years, Occu. Retired.

¶479

1. Karmavir s/o Gyanrao Bumbak, Age 53 years, Occu. Service.

¶480

1. Jabaji s/o Haribhau Jarad, Age 61 years, Occu. Retired.

¶481

1. Dwaraknath s/o Kisan Waghchaure, Age 54 years, Occu. Service.

¶482

1. Arjun s/o Kashinath Badade, Age 54 years, Occu. Service.

¶483

1. Radhakisan s/o Damodhar Thote, Age 50 years, Occu. Service.

¶484

1. Devidas s/o Shenphadu Pawar, Age 53 years, Occu. Service.

¶485

1. Satish s/o Shrinivas Deshpande, Age 62 years, Occu. Retired.

¶486

1. Arifoddin Khan Ajajoddin Khan, Age 51 years, Occu. Service.

¶487

1. Sarangdhar s/o Dattatrey Auti, Age 52 years, Occu. Service.

¶488

1. Bhaskar s/o Sukadev Shinde, Age 54 years, Occu. Service.

¶489

1. Kamalesh Keshavlal Sharma, Died through L.R. Smt. Shradha d/o Kamlesh Sharma, Age 21 years, Occu. Education.

¶490

1. Pandit s/o Santosh Pande, Age 51 years, Occu. Service.

¶491

1. Karbhari s/o Kisan Bilwane, Age 63 years, Occu. Retired.

¶492

1. Ravindra s/o Mahadeo Manware, Age 54 years, Occu. Service.

¶493

1. Prakash s/o Kesuba Jangle, Age 63 years, Occu. Retired.

¶494

1. Sitaram s/o Rangnath Jadhav, Age 53 years, Occu. Service.

¶495

1. Dattu s/o Baraku Domale, Age 51 years, Occu. Service.

¶496

1. Ramesh s/o Kaduba Salve, Age 55 years, Occu. Service.

¶497

1. Dadarao s/o Manohar Tarange, Age 52 years, Occu. Service.

¶498

1. Kailas s/o Asaram Bhivsane, Age 62 years, Occu. Retired.

¶499

¶500

901ca6480o20group

¶501

1. Vithal s/o Janardan Rane (Died), Through his L.R. Smt. Pushpa w/o Vitthal Rane, Age 52 years, Occu. Household.

¶502

1. Ramnath s/o Bhivsan Barfe, Age 62 years, Occu. Retired.

¶503

1. Suresh s/o Laxman Pale, Age 63 years, Occu. Retired.

¶504

1. Kundlik s/o Bhagaji Mahanur, Age 54 years, Occu. Service.

¶505

1. Kafinnath s/o Dada Mali, Age 53 years, Occu. Service.

¶506

1. Bandu s/o Gopidas Rathod, Age 55 years, Occu. Service.

¶507

1. Bhagwan s/o Asaram Kenekar, Age 51 years, Occu. Service.

¶508

1. Smt. Asha Baburao Dhas, Age 47 years, Occu. Service.

¶509

1. Ashok s/o Devram Waghmare, Age 50 years, Occu. Service.

¶510

1. Sunil s/o Baburao Houjwala, Age 51 years, Occu. Service.

¶511

1. Mohan s/o Haribhau Jarhad, Age 51 years, Occu. Service.

¶512

1. Sukhadev s/o Dharmaji Gaikwad, Age 50 years, Occu. Service.

¶513

1. Devidas s/o Bandu Pawar, Age 63 years, Occu. Retired.

¶514

1. Devendra s/o Namdev Thorat, Age 50 years, Occu. Service.

¶515

1. Balu s/o Girijaram Mhaske (Died), Through his L.R. Smt. Chandrabhaga w/o Balu Mhaske, Age 62 years, Occu. Household.

¶516

1. Mohan s/o Murlidhar Waghchaure, Age 62 years, Occu. Retired.

¶517

1. Bapu s/o Baburao Sathe, Age 51 years, Occu. Service.

¶518

1. Kaduba s/o Trimbak Suradkar, Age 69 years, Occu. Retired.

¶519

1. Vasant s/o Dada Daund, Age 64 years, Occu. Retired.

¶520

¶521

901ca6480o20group

¶522

1. Bhalchandra s/o Rangnath Bhale, Age 51 years, Occu. Service.

¶523

1. Uttam s/o Gangram Waghmode, Age 63 years, Occu. Retired.

¶524

1. Devidas s/o Sakharam Ajinath, Age 63 years, Occu. Retired.

¶525

1. Dharampal Rambhajan Shirishwal, Age 51 years, Occu. Service.

¶526

1. Daud Habib Pathan, Age 53 years, Occu. Service.

¶527

1. Girijaram s/o Laxman Laghane, Age 52 years, Occu. Service.

¶528

1. Uttam s/o Karbhari Bodkhe, Age 54 years, Occu. Service.

¶529

1. Gautam s/o Kachru Pagare, Age 55 years, Occu. Service.

¶530

1. Nandkishor Prabhakar Sakharekar, Age 54 years, Occu. Service.

¶531

1. Sadashiv s/o Baburao Pankar, Age 62 years, Occu. Retired.

¶532

1. Kaduba s/o Dadaba Kolse, Age 55 years, Occu. Service.

¶533

1. Santuk s/o Kisan Dabhade, deceased through L.R. Smt. Ramkour Santuk Dabhade, Age 50 years, Occu. Household, R/o. Kanchanwadi, Aurangabad.

¶534

1. Sarjerao s/o Kisanrao Mhaske, deceased through L.R. of mother Smt. Sarsabai Kisanrao Mhaske, Age 84 years, Occu. Household, R/o. Kanchanwadi, Aurangabad.

¶535

1. Chandrakant s/o Rajaram Pathe, deceased through L.R. Smt. Parigabai Chandrakant Pathe, Age 55 years, Occu. Household, R/o. Nakashtrawadi, Aurangabad.

¶536

1. Shaikh s/o Nabee Shaikh Ali, Age Major, Occu. Service, working in WALMI, Kanchanwadi, Tq. & Dist. Aurangabad.

¶537

1. Kisan s/o Kanhuji Tribhuwan,

¶538

¶539

901ca6480o20group

¶540

Age Major, Occu. Retired, R/o. Rahul Nagar, Near Jalan Nagar, Aurangabad.

¶541

1. Kashinath s/o Girdhari Chavan, Age 63 years, Occu. Retired, R/o. Kanchanwadi Parisar, Aurangabad.

¶542

1. Kaduba s/o Bhimaji Tarange, Age 68 years, Occu. Retired. 95) Shantilal s/o Bhaskar Jain, Age 50 years, Occu. Service. 96) Raybhan s/o Sarangdhar Devkate, Age 55 years, Occu. Service. 97) Avinash s/o Prabhakar Mule, Age 50 years, Occu. Service. 98) Prakash s/o Kisanrao Age, Age 63 years, Occu. Retired. 99) Dhondiram s/o Haribhau Gaikwad, Age 56 years, Occu. Service. 100) Rajaram s/o Kanhoba Agale, Age 62 years, Occu. Retired. 101) Mukunda s/o Sadashiv Ingle, Age 63 years, Occu. Retired. 102) Sanjay s/o Shriram Thakare, Age 57 years, Occu. Service. 103) Tukaram Rangnath Thorat Died through L.Rs. Smt. Indubai Tukaram Thorat Age 65 yrs. Occ. Household.

¶543

1. Kachru Manajo Kedare Age 61 yrs. Occ. Retired.

¶544

All R/o. WALMI, Kanchanwadi, Paithan Road, Aurangabad, Tq. & District Aurangabad.

¶545

The learned Senior Advocate has strenuously canvassed that if

¶546

the Civil Application is being allowed to the extent of 118 workers, notwithstanding the liberty to approach the Labour Court, the amount of

¶547

40 901ca6480o20group

¶548

Rs.97,000/- (multiplied by 118) be forthwith returned to the Management/ Walmi.

¶549

Though I find that the learned Senior Advocate would be justified in making such contention, I cannot ignore the fact that this amount has been deposited in this Court after the Management/ Walmi received the funds with great difficulty from the State Government. In the Covid-19 pandemic, if this amount is returned to the Government and in future, if the workers succeed before the Labour Court, it would be extremely difficult for the State Government to once again generate such amount.

¶550

In view of the above, Civil Application No.6480/2020 filed by these 113 workers seeking recovery of amount, therefore, stands disposed off as being infructuous .

¶551

Be that as it may, the amount of Rs.97,000/- multiplied by the above mentioned 118 workers, shall be preserved in this Court till 15.01.2021 subject to these 118 workers approaching the Labour Court with their individual or joint application under Section 33-C(2) of the Industrial Disputes Act, 1947, on or before 21.12.2020. They shall seek further orders as regards the deposited amounts in this Court. It would be open to the Labour Court to decide as to whether, the amounts be returned to the Management/ Walmi or be preserved until the decision of the cases preferred by these 109 workers along with the restoration cases

¶552

41 901ca6480o20group

¶553

of other 09 workers. It would be open to the Management/ Walmi to make a separate application for this purpose. It would also be open to these 118 workers to file an application jointly or individually to pray for preservation of the said amount in any nationalized bank so as to generate interest on the said amount during the pendency of litigation.

¶554

Needless to state, the cases of 118 workers would be subject to the settled procedure of adjudication before the Labour Court under Section 33-C(2) of the Industrial Disputes Act, 1947 and the Labour Court shall deal with the claims of these workers individually on their own merits.

¶555

At this juncture, the learned Senior Advocate made a request to absolve the Chief Engineer and Executive Director of the Management/ Walmi from paying 3% of interest over and above, if the amounts were not deposited in this Court within 12 weeks from the date of the order. Admittedly, they have committed a default and have not abided by the mandate of 12 weeks. Paragraph 14 of the order dated 26.07.2019 reads as under :-

¶556

"14. So also, the interest levied is reduced to 7% p.a. from the date of the application until the amount is actually paid. If the amounts directed by this Court are not paid within a period of 12 weeks from today, the rate of interest shall be restored to 10% and the amount of 3% rise in interest shall be recovered from the salary of the Chief Engineer and Executive Director of the petitioner."

¶557

¶558

901ca6480o20group

¶559

The learned advocate for the workers graciously consents for

¶560

absolving the Chief Engineer and Executive Director of the Walmi of the said liability.

¶561

As such, these two officers would stand absolved from the said

¶562

liability as set out in paragraph 14 of the order.

¶563

( RAVINDRA V. GHUGE, J. )

¶564

kps

The Director General Water and Land Management Institute Kanchanwadi v. Sushilabai Bhagwan Pankhede

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

The Director General Water and Land Management Institute Kanchanwadi v. Sushilabai Bhagwan Pankhede

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

Lalita Nagnath Patil Vs Bhaskar Maroti Birajdar and Others

Vikram Dagdoba Padwal and Others Vs Deorao Bajirao Thorat Died through Lrs Jijabai Deorao Thorat and Others

Sarda Cloth Stores Ahmednagar through the Then Partner Vs Pandharinath Bhanudas Mehetre

The Director General Water and Land Management Institute Kanchanwadi Vs Shaikh Rafiq Shaikh Tamijodin

The Director General Water and Land Management Institute Kanchanwadi Vs Tatyarao Mathu Pawar

The Director General Water and Land Management Institute Kanchanwadi Vs Prabhat Punjaji Salve through Lrs Savita Punjaji Salve