A writ petition challenged an Industrial Court order quashing a Municipal Council's recovery of excess pay from a retired employee. The High Court found the Industrial Court correctly relied on the Supreme Court's Rafiq Masih judgment barring such recoveries and declined to interfere.
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.
1 / 3 940c.wp662.2024
IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY NAGPUR BENCH : NAGPUR
WRIT PETITION NO. 662 OF 2024
The Chief Officer, Municipal Council, Mul, Tal. Mul, District – Chandrapur Vs.
Maroti s/o Karuji Sherki and Ors.
Office notes, Office Memoranda of Coram, appearances, Court's orders or directions and Registrar's orders.
Court's or Judge's Orders.
Mr. D.M. Kale, Advocate for petitioner. Mr. R.R. Dawda, Advocate for respondent No.1. Mr. N.R. Rode, AGP for respondent Nos.2 & 3/State.
CORAM : N.R. BORKAR, J. DATE : 24.09.2024.
This petition takes exception to the judgment and order dated 21.10.2023 passed by the learned Industrial Court, Chandrapur, in Complaint (ULP) No.15/2022.
Prity
2 / 3 940c.wp662.2024
“15. It is not a disputed fact in present case that, the complainant is class C employee and has retired from service on 31.03.2021. This falls under situations (1) and (2) as laid down by Hon’ble Supreme Court in case of Rafiq Masih referred above, wherein recoveries by the employers, would be impermissible in law, in the circumstances, where payments have mistakenly been made by the employer, in excess of their entitlement. In these circumstances, respondent No.3 is not entitled for recovery of alleged amount which is paid in excess to the entitlement of the complainant, as directed by Hon’ble Supreme Court in case of Rafiq Masih referred above. Natural consequences of these circumstances is that, impugned order dated 23.02.2022 has to be termed as illegal, being in violations of mandate of Hon’ble Supreme Court in case of Rafiq Masih referred above. Resultantly, by issuing impugned order dated 23.02.2022, which is illegal, is an act of the respondents, whereby they have engaged in unfair labour practice. In these circumstances, I am of the opinion that, the complainant has proved that, impugned order dated
Prity
3 / 3 940c.wp662.2024
23.02.2022 is illegal and by issuing impugned order dated 23.02.2022, the respondents are engaged in unfair labour practice. With these reasoning, I answer issue No.01 and 02 in the affirmative.”
(N.R. BORKAR, J.)
Prity
1 issue framed by the court
Whether recovery of excess amounts paid to a retired class C employee was permissible under the Supreme Court's Rafiq Masih principles.
Colour shows how this judgement treated each authority
State of Punjab and Ors. Vs. Rafiq MasihRelied on¶4
AIR 2015 SCC 696 · Who else cites this
1 provisions across 1 enactments
The Chief Officer, Municipal Council, Mul
Maroti s/o Karuji Sherki
N.R. Borkar
As recorded by the court registry
Judgements on the same questions, provisions and authorities, from every court
