Ganesh Bharat Khose vs Divisional Controller Maharashtra State Road Transport Corporation

The petitioner impugns order dated 31.01.2026 passed by Industrial Court, Ahmednagar below Exhibit U-2 in Complaint (ULP) No.77 of 2025, whereby petitioner’s application for grant of interim relief i.e. stay to recovery of amount has been rejected.

¶15

The petitioner is employed with respondent/corporation. Initially he was appointed as daily wager. Later on, he was appointed as Assistant. According to petitioner, he was entitled to be conferred with permanent status since 01.10.2020 and consequential benefit. On representation, petitioner and other four employees were granted time-scale with retrospective effect from 01.10.2020. Thereafter, petitioner made an application for payment of arrears, but his request

¶16

wp-2026-2026.odt

¶17

(2)

¶18

was ignored. He approached Assistant Labour Commissioner with his complaint but no settlement could be arrived. At this stage, respondent issued impugned order dated 11.05.2024 directing recovery of Rs. 84,891/- that was paid to him in July-2024. The petitioner therefore filed Complaint (ULP) No.77 of 2025 before Industrial Court, Ahmednagar along with application for interim relief below Exhibit U-2, Industrial Court rejected application vide impugned order dated 31.01.2026. Hence, this writ petition.

¶19

Mr. Natu, learned advocate appearing for petitioner submits that petitioner was in service on daily wages during corona period from 01.10.2020 to 01.11.2020 and 06.05.2021 to 15.10.2021. However, as per policy of corporation, he was not called on duty but that cannot be a reason to deny him benefit which was otherwise conferred upon permanent employees. The petitioner has been victimized because he claimed arrears. The substantive complaint raising challenge to impugned order of recovery is pending before Industrial Court. Therefore, interim relief in nature of stay to recovery under impugned communication ought to have granted.

¶20

Per contra, Ms. Anagha Rotte, learned advocate appearing for respondent/corporation supports impugned order. She would point out that action of recovery of excess payment was taken against five employees including petitioner. All other employees have redeposited amount excessively received by them. The petitioner has

¶21

wp-2026-2026.odt

¶22

(3)

¶23

challenged action of corporation in complaint before Industrial Court. However, prima facie he could not demonstrate his entitlement to retain excess payment made to him. She would, therefore, justify impugned order.

¶24

Having considered submissions advanced by learned advocates appearing for respective parties and perusal of reasoning adopted by Industrial Court in impugned order, it can be observed that petitioner is aggrieved by order directing recovery of amount paid to him towards arrears. Undisputedly, aforesaid amount pertains to pandemic period when petitioner was not yet confirmed in service and he was in service as a daily wager. Although, petitioner is conferred with status of permanency by giving deemed date w.e.f. 01.10.2020, prima facie, without rendering service during pandemic period, he would not be entitled to receive wages for such period. However, issue as to entitlement of petitioner to receive arrears in light of time-scale granted to him with retrospective effect will have to be determined after recording of evidence in pending complaint.

¶25

At this stage, Mr. Natu, learned advocate appearing for petitioner points out that immediately after rejection of interim relief by Industrial Court, respondent/corporation haphazardly recovered five installments worth Rs.29,006/- out of petitioner’s salary. He could not pay loan installment and received net payment of Rs.9,669/- only in his hand.

¶26

wp-2026-2026.odt

¶27

(4)

¶28

In light of aforesaid circumstances, this Court finds that in interest of justice, it is expedient to finally decide pending complaint since controversy can be resolved on the basis of documentary evidence tendered into service. At the same time, the petitioner needs to be protected from hasty recovery of amount. In result, following order is passed :

¶29

ORDER

¶30

(I) Writ Petition is partly allowed.

¶31

(II) The Industrial Court shall endeavour to expeditiously decide Complaint (ULP) No.77 of 2025 and in any case within a period of four months from today.

¶32

(III) The respondent/corporation shall not recover more than one installment from monthly salary of petitioner.

¶33

(IV) The recovery made by corporation shall be subject to final outcome of complaint.

¶34

(S.G. CHAPALGAONKAR, J.)

¶35

Mujaheed//

Ganesh Bharat Khose v. Divisional Controller Maharashtra State Road Transport Corporation

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Ganesh Bharat Khose v. Divisional Controller Maharashtra State Road Transport Corporation

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Why is it important?

What the court decided

Issues for consideration

Procedural history

Parties & counsel

Coram

Case details

Similar cases

Shankarrao Shripatrao Ghodake and Another vs Bharatrao Shripatrao Ghodake Since Deceased Thr Lrs Anant Bharat Ghodake and Others

Sai Industries through Its Proprietor Sanjay Chandrakant More vs the State of Maharashtra through Its Secretary and Others

Nanasaheb Alias Dnyaneshwar Sidram Solanke Thr Its General Power of Attorney Holder vs Sadashiv Tulshirmji Lomte Died Thr Lrs Dwarkabai Sadashiv Lomte and Others

Amruta Amit Chavan vs Amit Kamalakar Chavan

Sujata Sunil Patil vs the State of Maharashtra through Principal Secretary and Others

Beejsheetal Research Pvt. Ltd. through Its Authorised Person vs Tatyasaheb Parasram Deshmukh and Another