Allowed

Vasantrao Naik Krishi Vidyapeeth and Another v. Narayan Dhondiba Suryawanshi

Bombay HC10 Dec 2024WP/5262/2022

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

In a writ petition against an Industrial Court order granting regularisation and benefits to a workman, the High Court set aside the lower court's decision. The Court held that the University, as a State instrumentality, is exempt from Model Standing Order Section 4(C). It clarified that only the issue of benefits, not gratuity, was sub judice. The complaint was dismissed. Petitioners authorized:

What did the court decide?

Judgment and order of the Industrial Court dated 23.11.2021 in Complaint ULP No. 295/2016 set aside; Complaint ULP No. 295/2016 dismissed.

Vasantrao Naik Krishi Vidyapeeth and Another… — Pension and Retirement Benefits | Bombay HC (2024)

¶1

WP-5262-2022.odt

¶2

2024:BHC-AUG:29603

¶3

IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY BENCH AT AURANGABAD

¶4

WRIT PETITION NO. 5262 OF 2022

¶5

1. Vasantrao Naik Krishi Vidyapeeth
(Vasantrao Naik Agriculture University)
Kulsachiv (Registrar), Krishi Vidyapeeth,
Parbhani

¶6

2. Kapus Vishshdnya (Cotton Specialist)
Kapus Sanshodhan Kendra, Deglur Road,
At Post Tal-Deglur,
Dist. Nanded.

¶7

...PETITIONERS

¶8

Versus

¶9

Narayan Dhondiba Suryawanshi...RESPONDENT

¶10

***

¶11

Mr. M. N. Navandar, Advocate for Petitioners
Mr. U. V. Khonde, Advocate for Respondent
***

¶12

CORAM:R.M. JOSHI, J.
DATE:DECEMBER 10, 2024

¶13

PER COURT:

¶14

1.This Petition takes exception to judgment and
order dated 23.11.2021 passed in Complaint ULP No.
295/2016 by Industrial Court, Jalna whereby
Respondent/Original Complainant was granted gratuity,
wage difference and pensionary benefits at par with
permanent employees.

¶15

2.Parties are referred to as University and
Workman for the sake of brevity.

¶16

Umesh PAGE 1 OF 12

¶17

WP-5262-2022.odt

¶18

3.Petitioner is a deemed University established

¶19

and governed under the provisions of The Maharashtra
Agricultural Universities (Krishi Vidyapeeths) Act,
1983 (for short ‘the Act’) and Maharashtra Agricultural
Universities (Krishi Vidyapeeths) Statutes, 1990. It is
claimed that Maharashtra Civil Services Rules are
applicable mutatis mutandis to the employees of the
university, affiliated colleges and recognized
institutions. University is required to undertake
recruitment for various posts as per the rules and
statutory provisions made in this regard by the State
Government.

¶20

4.Workman filed complaint being Complaint ULP

¶21

No. 295/2016 before Industrial Court, Jalna on
16.09.2016 contending that he was appointed as labour
on clear vacant post in the year 1978 and he continued
to work for more than 240 days till date of filing o
the complaint. He however made grievance that he is not

¶22

paid minimum wages and has not been granted

¶23

regularization after satisfactory completion of one
year of his service. It is alleged that though there

¶24

are permanent vacant post available with the

PAGE 2 OF 12

Umesh

WP-5262-2022.odt

University, with a view to deny privilege of permanent
employees, complainant and other workmen were kept
temporary for years together and hence, this amounts to
unfair labour practice. With these amongst other
contentions, Workman had sought benefits of regular
employees on completion of 240 days of service so also
retiral benefits including gratuity.

¶29

5. University appeared before the Industrial

¶30

Court and resisted complaint by filing written
statement. It is denied that Workman joined service in
the year 1979 and worked continuously till 2001. It is
contended that the Workmen were engaged as daily wager
for temporary/seasonal work and were paid minimum wages
from time to time. It is claimed that under Government
Resolution No. 9/2000 a decision was taken by the State
Government for compulsory retrenchment of 7444 daily
rated labours from agriculture university in State of
Maharashtra under Section 25(f) of the Industrial
Disputes Act. Accordingly, they were retrenched by
paying compensation. It is contended that at no point
of time workman came to be appointed at any sanctioned

¶31

post by following due procedure of law. As such, no

PAGE 3 OF 12

Umesh

WP-5262-2022.odt

vested/legal right can be claimed by the workman

¶36

including benefit fo permanency and other benefits at
par with permanent employees.

¶37

6.Both parties led evidence before the

¶38

Industrial Court. Learned Industrial Court by passing
impugned judgment and order allowed complaint, however,

¶39

since the workman had already attended age of
superannuation, he was not reinstated but he was
directed to be paid all monetary benefits and post

¶40

retiral benefits including gratuity at par with
permanent employees.

¶41

7.Learned Counsel for the University submits

¶42

that since the University is governed by the Act, it is
not open for the University to create the post and
State Government only could create/sanction post to be
filled in the establishment of the University. It is

¶43

his contention that the leaned Industrial Court has committed error in applying provisions of Industrial Employment (Standing Orders) Act and Section 4(c) of the model standing orders framed thereunder for granting status of permanent and benefits thereof to the workman. He drew attention of the Court to the Umesh PAGE 4 OF 12

¶44

WP-5262-2022.odt

¶45

judgment of the Division Bench of this Court in case of

¶46

Municipal Council, Tirora and Another vs. Tulsidas
Baliram Bindhade, 2017 (4) All MR 166 wherein it is
held that Section 4(c) of the model standing orders has

¶47

noapplicationtotheGovernmentorits

¶48

instrumentalities. It is his further submission that
not only the present workman but other workmen had
filed complaint before the Industrial Court with
similar contention and prayers. The said orders passed
by the Industrial Court were challenged by University
in Writ Petition No. 13314/2022 and other connected
Petitions before this Court. This Court by passing
judgment dated 25.01.2023 has allowed the Petitions and
dismissed the complaints. Thus, it is his submission

¶49

that since there is already a decision made by this
Court in respect of similarly placed workmen, there is
no question of taking any different view in this
Petition.

¶50

8.Learned Counsel for the Workman opposed the
Petition on the ground that all complaints were filed
and decided independently and as such, there is no
question of the judgment passed in case of the other

PAGE 5 OF 12

Umesh

WP-5262-2022.odt

Workmen to have application to the present case. It is

¶55

his submission that in any case this Court while
passing judgment in Writ Petition No. 13314/2022 has
not taken into consideration the judgment of the
Hon’ble Supreme Court in case of State of Punjab and

¶56

Others vs. Jagjit Singh and Others, 2016 AIR (SCW)

¶57

5176. It is his submission that in the said judgment it
is clearly held by the Hon’ble Supreme Court that the
principle of equal pay for equal work is application to
all temporary employees and right is vested in them to
claim wages at par with the minimum pay scale of the
regularly engaged Government employees. He further
submits that in view of the judgment of the Hon’ble
Supreme Court in case of Sabha Shanker Dube vs.
Divisional Forest Officer and Others, Civil Appeal No.
10956/2018, such temporary employees are entitled to
draw wages at the minimum of pay scale. He placed
reliance on the judgment of this Court in case of
Carona Limited vs. Sitaram Atmaram Ghag and Others,
2000 (3) Bom.C.R. 608in order to contend that it is

¶58

open for the Industrial Court to decide the issue as to whether non payment of gratuity amounts to unfair labour practice. It is his submission that under the Umesh PAGE 6 OF 12

¶59

WP-5262-2022.odt

¶60

Payment of Gratuity Act, the competent authority is
entitled to only compute the amount of gratuity, if in
dispute. Thus, it is his submission that the order
passed by the learned Industrial Court of direction to

¶61

pay gratuity to the workman does not deserve
interference.With regard to the submissions of the
learned Counsel for the Petitioner, relying upon the
judgment of Division Bench of this Court in case of
Municipal Council, Tirora(supra), it is submitted that
herein this case no regularization/permanency has been
granted by the learned Industrial Court and as such,
said judgment has no application to the facts of the
present case.

¶62

9.At the outset, it needs to be recorded that
admittedly similarly placed workmen as the workman
herein had filed complaints before the Industrial Court
seeking benefits of the employment including difference
of wages, gratuity at par with the permanent employees.
The said judgments were challenged before this Court in
above quoted Writ Petition. Perusal of the first
paragraph of the said judgment dated 25.01.2023 passed
by this Court itself clearly indicates that even in

PAGE 7 OF 12

Umesh

WP-5262-2022.odt

those complaints University was directed to grant
benefits at par with permanent employees. Thus, no
distinction can be made with regard to the complaints
filed by the other workmen and the present workman and
relief sought therein. This Court, therefore, finds no
substance in the said contention of the learned Counsel
for Workman that the judgment of this Court in above
Writ Petitions would not apply to the present case.

¶67

10.The question arises before this Court is as to

¶68

whether it is open for this Court to take different
view than the view taken by the Coordinate Bench of
this Court in case of similarly placed workmen. Having
regard to the similarity of the facts as well as the
law applicable to the facts of both case, this Court
finds no reason to take any different view than the one
taken by the Coordinate Bench of this Court.

¶69

11.With regard to the submissions of the learned
Counsel for the Workman that this is not the case of
permanency/regularization is not supported by the
material on record. In the impugned judgment, the
learned Industrial Court has observed that merely
because the workman has completed more than 65 years of

¶70

Umesh PAGE 8 OF 12

¶71

WP-5262-2022.odt

¶72

age i.e., age of superannuation and, therefore,

¶73

reinstatement is not granted. However, observations
made therein clearly indicates that the Industrial
Court has held that Workman is not entitled for
benefits of permanent employee including retiral
benefits. Industrial Court has further recorded
findings in paragraphs 9 and 10 of the judgment, which
reads thus:

¶74

“9)Admittedly the respondents have
retrenched the complainant as per the
provisions of the Central Act. The
respondents have not produced on record any
rules and regulations consistent with the
Bombay Model Standing Orders. The Order 4-C
of the Bombay Industrial (Employment)
Rules, 1959 reads as under.

¶75

4-C)A badli workman or temporary

¶76

workman who has put in 190 day’s
uninterrupted service in the aggregate
in any establishment of seasonal nature
or 240 days “uninterrupted service” in

¶77

theaggregateinanyother
establishment, during a period of
preceding twelve calender months, shall
be made permanent in that establishment
by order in writing signed by the
Manager, or any person authorized in

PAGE 9 OF 12

Umesh

WP-5262-2022.odt

thatbehalfbythemanager,
irrespective of whether or not his name
is on the muster roll of the
establishment, through out the period
of said twelve calender months.

¶82

10)From the bare reading of this
provision, it is abundantly clear that it
is boundent duty of the employer to issue
the order of permanency to the employee,
who continuously worked for more than 240
days in preceding 12 months irrespective of
whether his name appeared on the muster
roll or not. Admittedly such type of order
is not being issued tot he complainant.”

¶83

12.The aforestated observations of the Industrial

¶84

Court clearly shows that it is held that Section 4(C)
of the Bombay Industrial Employment (Standing Orders)
Act, 1959 and model standing orders issued thereunder
apply to the University. There is no dispute about the
fact that the University is governed by the Act and is
fully controlled by the State Government. There is
further no dispute about the fact that the University
cannot create post and the creation of the post and
approval of the appointment is within sole discretion

¶85

of the State Government. In such circumstances,

PAGE 10 OF 12

Umesh

WP-5262-2022.odt

judgment in case of Municipal Council, Tirora(supra)
squarely applies to the present case. It is held
therein that Section 4(c) of the model standing orders
framed under the Industrial Employment Standing Order
Act has no application to the Government or its
instrumentalities. Thus, judgment of the Industrial
Court being contrary to the law laid down by Division
Bench of this Court cannot sustain.

¶90

13.However, there cannot be any dispute made with
regard to the position of law that in case where there
is denial of payment of gratuity and issue arises as to
whether the workman would be entitled for the gratuity,
the item 9 of Schedule 4 of the Maharashtra Recognition
of Trade Unions and Prevention of Unfair Labor Laws
Practices Act, 1971 could be invoked. Now question
arises herein is that whether it is justified for the
Industrial Court to pass an order of payment of
gratuity when in view of the provisions of law no
permanency/regularization could have been granted to
the Workman and answer thereto is in negative.

¶91

14.Learned Counsel for the Workman submits that

¶92

if this Court is inclined to cause interference in the

PAGE 11 OF 12

Umesh

WP-5262-2022.odt

impugned judgment, it be clarified that allowing of
this Petition and setting aside order of the Industrial

¶97

Court would not come in way of the Workman to

¶98

independently agitate his claim for gratuity, as per
law.

¶99

15.Since issue before the Industrial Court was

¶100

about the right of the Workman to permanency and
benefits at par with permanent workmen, the issue of
entitlement of the gratuity was neither agitated nor
decided. Hence, though order impugned is interfered
with, the same shall not preclude the Workman to
agitate his claim in respect of gratuity in accordance
with law.

¶101

16.In view of above, Petition stands allowed.
Judgment and order passed by the learned Industrial
Court in Complaint (ULP) No. 295/2016 dated 23.11.2021
is set aside. Complaint (ULP) No. 295/2016 stands
dismissed.

¶102

PAGE 12 OF 12

¶103

Umesh

Vasantrao Naik Krishi Vidyapeeth and Another v. Narayan Dhondiba Suryawanshi

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Vasantrao Naik Krishi Vidyapeeth and Another v. Narayan Dhondiba Suryawanshi

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

Avesh Abdul Kalam Shaikh vs State of Maharashtra

Vijaykumar Kashinath Biradar and Others Vs the State of Maharashtra through Its Principal Secretary and Others

Vijaykumar Kashinath Biradar and Others Vs the State of Maharashtra through Its Principal Secretary and Others

The Divisional Controller Maharashtra State Road Transport Corporation Vs Jaya Alais Gangasagar Dattatrao Dhawale and Others

Belapur Education Society through Its Authorized Trustees Sharad Ramvilas Somani Vs the State of Maharashtra through Principal Secretary and Others

Premshri Madhukarrao Dandekar Vs Anil Ramchandra Jethwani and Another