Dismissed¶8

Shahaji Vinayakrao Pawal v. the Managing Director Jaibhavani Sahakari Sakhar Karkhana Ltd.

Bombay HC19 Jan 2026CA/13903/2024

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

2026:BHC-AUG:3521; Jaibhavani Sahakari Sakhar Karkhana Ltd; arrears of salary; 16 months July 2004 to October 2005; closure of sugar karkhana; 70% salary agreement; interest @ 10% per annum; Section 33-C(2) Industrial Disputes Act 1947; beneficial legislation; Labour Court Aurangabad; Application (IDA) Nos. 22/2015 and 21/2015; perversity; senior citizens; superannuation; writ petitions dismissed; no orders as to costs.

What did the court decide?

None; both writ petitions dismissed with no order as to costs, leaving the Labour Court's award of salary arrears with 10% interest undisturbed. ¶8

Shahaji Vinayakrao Pawal vs the Managing Director Jaibhavani Sahakari Sakhar Karkhana Ltd. — Bombay HC (2026) — LawSathi Research

What the court decided

AI extract

Outcome

None; both writ petitions dismissed with no order as to costs, leaving the Labour Court's award of salary arrears with 10% interest undisturbed.

¶8

Issue for consideration

Whether the grant of interest @ 10% per annum on the arrears of salary awarded by the Labour Court was appropriate. +1 more

¶7

Court's answer

The interest @ 10% per annum imposed by the Labour Court was appropriate, since the respondents had sought payment of their dues from the date of superannuation, were senior citizens, and were constrained to litigate the matter for two years.

¶7

Ratio / Principle

The petitioner-karkhana, by its written statements before the Labour Court, admitted that the respondents-employees were working with it; its witness Vishnu Yadav admitted the existence of the agreement whereby 70% of salaries were to be paid during closure; and the salary certificates and statement of calculation of the amount due filed by the employees went unchallenged.

¶6

Key takeaways

The Labour Court having adjudicated both disputes on the evidence and documents before it and upholding the Industrial Disputes Act, 1947 as beneficial legislation, this Court finds no perversity in the orders dated 16.08.2017 passed by the Labour Court, Aurangabad in Application (IDA) Nos. 22/2015 and 21/2015.ratio¶7

Detailed headnote1 paragraphs

Bombay High Court (Aurangabad Bench) (Siddheshwar S. Thombre, J.), by common order dated 19.01.2026 in Writ Petition No. 352 of 2019 and Writ Petition No. 351 of 2019, dismissed the petitions filed by Jaibhavani Sahakari Sakhar Karkhana Ltd. seeking quashing of the Labour Court, Aurangabad order dated 16.08.2017 in Application (IDA) Nos. 22/2015 and 21/2015, whereby claims of two superannuated employees (a clerk and a wireman) for 16 months' unpaid salary (July 2004 to October 2005) were allowed with interest at 10% per annum. The karkhana had admitted the employees' service in its written statements; its witness admitted the agreement to pay 70% of salaries during the closure period; and the employees' salary certificates and computation went unchallenged. The Court upheld the 10% interest, noting the employees were senior citizens constrained to litigate for two years, and found no perversity in the Labour Court's orders, the Industrial Disputes Act, 1947 being beneficial legislation.

¶1

2026:BHC-AUG:3521

¶2

Dilwale 1 16 & 81-WP--.odt

¶3

IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY BENCH AT AURANGABAD

¶4

16 CIVIL APPLICATION NO. 13903 OF 2024

¶5

¶6

WRIT PETITION NO.352 OF 2019

¶7

THE MANAGING DIRECTOR JAIBHAVANI SAHAKARI SAKHAR

¶8

KARKHANA LTD

¶9

VERSUS

¶10

SHAHAJI VINAYAKRAO PAWAL

¶11

AND

¶12

81 WRIT PETITION NO. 351 OF 2019

¶13

JAIBHAVANI SAHAKARI SAKHAR KARKHANA LTD THROUGH ITS

¶14

MANAGING DIRECTOR

¶15

VERSUS

¶16

JALINDAR MANIKRAO RADE

¶17

Mr. Pradeep L. Shahane, Advocate for the Petitioner in both petitions. Mr. Umesh M. Indani, Advocate for Respondents

¶18

WITH

¶19

CIVIL APPLICATION NO. 13902 OF 2024

¶20

¶21

WRIT PETITION NO.351 OF 2019

¶22

CORAM : SIDDHESHWAR S. THOMBRE, J. DATE : 19.01.2026

¶23

PER COURT :

¶24

By consent of both sides, heard finally at the stage of admission

¶25

and since common question of facts and law involved therein, both the Petitions are heard together and decided by this common order.

¶26

Both these writ petitions are filed by Jaibhavani Sahakari Sakhar

¶27

Dilwale 2

¶28

16 & 81-WP--.odt

¶29

Karkhana Ltd seeking quashing of order dated 16.08.2017 passed by Labour Court, Aurangabad whereby the Application (IDA) Nos.22/2015 and 21/2015 filed by the respondents/employees came to be allowed thereby directing the petitioner-karkhana to pay the respective amount of arrears of salary to the respondents/employees along with an interest @ 10% per annum.

¶30

The facts of the case in nut-shell are such that the employees in both the petitions were working as clerk and wireman respectively with the Jaibhavani Sahakari Sakhar Karkhana Ltd. Respondent-Shahaji superannuated on 26.11.2014 whereas respondent-Jalindar superannuated on 08.12.2014. Both of them were not paid salaries during the period of July 2004 to October 2005 (16 Months). Respondent-Shahaji claimed that he was entitled to monthly salary of Rs.6,321.52/- per month whereas respondent-Jalindar was entitled to salary of Rs.10,279.52/- per month. Respondent-Shahaji has claimed total amount of Rs.4,09,904.94/- including salary of 16 months, provident fund and other incidental benefits, whereas respondentJalindar has claimed amount of Rs.3,65,345.62/-. Despite repeated request, petitioners failed to pay the dues, therefore, respondentsemployees were constrained to file disputes before Labour Court wherein they filed their affidavit of evidence and examined themselves. The petitioners examined Vishnu Bhanudas Yadav who was an employee of the petitioner-karkhana.

¶31

3 16 & 81-WP--.odt

¶32

Dilwale

¶33

The contention of the petitioner-karkhana was that the complaints filed by respondents were barred by limitation and during the relevant period the petitioner-karkhana was closed and there were huge loans on it, due to which it could not pay the salaries of respondents-employees. Petitioner-karkhana opposed the complaint on the ground that respondents had not completed continuous services of 240 days. The learned counsel for the petitioner-karkhana has relied upon following judgments in support his argument:-

¶34

i) State of Punjab v. Labour Court Jullunder and Ors., MANU/SC/0375/1979.

¶35

ii) Jaibhavani Sahakari Sakhar Karkhana Ltd., V. Baban Achyutrao Kulkarni in Writ Petition No.3696 of 2016 dated 17.10.2016. iii) Press Council of India v. Union of India and Another, (2012) 12 SCC 329. iv) Manik Keshav Jagdale v. Parner Taluka Sahakari Sakhar Karkhana and Another, 2019 CLR 323.

¶36

Whereas learned counsel for the respondents-employees has placed his reliance on the judgment of Co-ordinate bench of this Court in the case of Gatewell Board and Paper Pvt. Ltd. v. Fakruddin S. Lokhandwala and another, 2007 (1), Mh.L.J. 246.

¶37

The learned Labour Court has recorded a finding that the Hon’ble Apex Court in the case of Central Bank of India Ltd. v. P.S. Rajagopalan, 1963(7) FLR 14 (SC) has held that there is no limitation for filing complaint under Section 33-C(2) of Industrial Disputes Act, 1947 and said provision was beneficial one. Based on the record available and the documents exhibited before it, the learned Labour Court has recorded that as per the agreement executed between the petitioner-karkhana and

¶38

Dilwale 4 16 & 81-WP--.odt

¶39

the respondents, petitioners were entitled to 70% of their salaries during the period when the karkhana was closed. After adjudicating both the complaints, the learned Labour Court has granted the amounts claimed by both the respondents-employees along with 10% interest per annum thereon stating that the petitioners were senior citizen and their salaries were deliberately not paid.

¶40

Having gone through the order passed by learned Labour Court it clearly reveals that the petitioner-karkhana, by filing written statements before the Labour Court, has admitted that the respondents-employees were working with it and the witness of petitioner-karkhana namely Vishnu Yadav has admitted the existence of agreement whereby 70% salaries were to be paid. The salary certificates and statement of calculation of the amount due filed by the respondents-employees went unchallenged by the petitioner-karkhana.

¶41

Now the only issue remains to be decided is regarding the grant of interest @ 10% per annum. The respondents-employees have requested the petitioner-karkhana for payment of dues since the date of their superannuation till the filing of complaints and both of them were senior citizens who were constrained to litigate the matter for two years. Therefore, the interest imposed upon the petitioner-karkhana was appropriate. As the learned Labour Court has adjudicated both the disputes by examining the evidences and documents available before it and upholding that the Industrial Disputes Act, 1947 is a beneficial

¶42

Dilwale 5 16 & 81-WP--.odt

¶43

legislation, this Court does not find any perversity in the orders dated 16.08.2017 passed by learned Labour Court Aurangabad in Application

¶44

(IDA) Nos.22/2015 and 21/2015 respectively.

¶45

In view thereof, writ petitions are dismissed. No orders as to costs.

¶46

[ SIDDHESHWAR S. THOMBRE ] JUDGE

Shahaji Vinayakrao Pawal v. the Managing Director Jaibhavani Sahakari Sakhar Karkhana Ltd.

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Shahaji Vinayakrao Pawal v. the Managing Director Jaibhavani Sahakari Sakhar Karkhana Ltd.

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Why is it important?

What the court decided

Issues for consideration

Cases cited

Statutes considered

Procedural history

Parties & counsel

Coram

Case details

All orders in this case

Similar cases

Mohammad Ashfaq Mohammad Siddiqu Motiwala and Another vs Prafulla Bhaskar Kulkarni and Others

Archana Shivajirao Bhingarde Alias Archana Satish Palaskar vs the State of Maharashtra and Others

Rajendra Madhav Thorat vs the State of Maharashtra through Its Principal Secretary and Another

Balwantrao Bhujangrao Mirkale vs the State of Mahrashtra and Others

The Maharashtra Krishna Valley Development Corporation vs Rushikant Mahadeo Mahajan and Others

Rajendra Bahadursing Pardeshi and Others vs the Chief Officer Municipal Council Paithan and Others