Bombay High Court
Shri Sheshrao Maniram Wasnik, Ramtek vs The Plantation Officer, Social ... on 2 February, 2016
Author: Z.A. Haq
Bench: Z.A. Haq
1 wp3879.08
IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY,
NAGPUR BENCH, NAGPUR.
WRIT PETITION NO .3879 OF 2008
Shri Sheshrao Maniram Wasnik,
Aged about 48 years, Occupation - Service,
R/o C/o Chandrabhanji Tembhurne's
House, Rajendraprasad Ward, Ramtek. .... PETITIONER
VERSUS
1) The Plantation Officer,
Social Forestry Range, Ramtek,
District Nagpur.
2) Member,
Industrial Court, Maharashtra,
Nagpur Bench, Nagpur. .... RESPONDENTS
______________________________________________________________
None for the petitioner,
Shri Prashant Gode, Advocate for the respondent No.1,
Shri N.R. Rode, A.G.P. for the respondent No.2.
______________________________________________________________
CORAM : Z.A. HAQ, J.
DATED : 2
nd FEBRUARY, 2016.
ORAL JUDGMENT :
1. None appears for the petitioner.
Heard Shri Prashant Gode, learned Advocate for the respondent No.1 and Shri N.R. Rode, learned Assistant Government ::: Uploaded on - 17/02/2016 ::: Downloaded on - 31/07/2016 03:30:05 ::: 2 wp3879.08 Pleader for the respondent No.2.
2. I have examined the documents placed on the record of the petition with the assistance of the learned Advocate for the respondent No.1 and learned Assistant Government Pleader for the respondent No.2.
3. The petitioner filed complaint under Section 28 of the Maharashtra Recognition of Trade Unions and Prevention of Unfair Labour Practices Act, 1971 contending that he was employed as Choukidar by the respondent No.1 with effect from 08-02-1994, that he continued in the employment for more than 240 days in every year, that prior to 07-02-1994 he worked at Ramtek for three years and then he was transferred to Sirpur Nursery where he continued to work from 09-02-1994 till his services were terminated on 15-02-1994. The petitioner contended that the termination order was bad in law and the compensation offered by the respondent was inadequate and not in accordance with the provisions of Section 25-F of the Industrial Disputes Act, 1947 (hereinafter referred to as the "Act of 1947"). The petitioner further contended that employees junior to the petitioner were retained and therefore, the termination order was required to be ::: Uploaded on - 17/02/2016 ::: Downloaded on - 31/07/2016 03:30:05 ::: 3 wp3879.08 quashed for non-compliance with the provisions of Section 25-G of the Act of 1947.
4. The respondent No.1 opposed the claim of the petitioner.
The respondent No.1 raised the issue that it was not an 'industry' as contemplated by Section 2(j) of the Act of 1947. On merits of the matter, the respondent No.1 pleaded that it had complied with all the mandatory requirements and the termination order was proper and justified.
5. After considering the rival submissions, the Labour Court found that the amount of compensation offered by the respondent No.1 was proper, that the provisions of Section 25-F of the Act of 1947 were complied with, that the services of the petitioner were terminated as the work of plantation was handed over to Gram-Panchayat and therefore, work was not available with the respondent No.1. The Labour Court found that the seniority list is maintained as required by Rule 81 of the Industrial Disputes (Bombay) Rules, 1957 and the provisions of Section 25-G of the Act of 1947 were not violated. The Labour Court dismissed the complaint filed by the petitioner.
::: Uploaded on - 17/02/2016 ::: Downloaded on - 31/07/2016 03:30:05 :::4 wp3879.08
6. The petitioner filed revision before the Industrial Court which is dismissed on 17-01-2008. The Industrial Court has independently applied its mind and has concurred with the findings recorded by the Labour Court. The relevant considerations are in paragraph 7 of the order passed by the Industrial Court, as follows :
"7. The learned trial Judge has made elaborate discussions. Exh. 26 is the order of retrenchment retrenching the persons in block as there remains no work.
Notice was issued offering compensation. The document Exh.40 to Exh.43 were referred and elaborately considered. The letter/notice alongwith demand draft was sent to the complainant. The compensation has rightly been tendered. The learned trial judge also has made an arithmetical calculation and thereafter has reached to a conclusion that the compensation is correctly calculated. Needless to state that refusal to accept compensation would not make valid tender of compensation invalid. The learned trial Judge thereafter has considered the citation in the case of Pune Theatre vs. State of East Bengal (2000 II CLR 977) cited before him. It appears that from the uncontroverted fact of compliance of Sections 25-F, 25-G of the Industrial Disputes Act read with Rule 81 keeps no space for the complainant to assail the findings arrived by the learned trial Judge. The revision is devoid of merits and needs to be dismissed. The point for determination is answered accordingly."
7. The findings recorded by the subordinate Courts are based on proper appreciation of pleadings, documents and evidence on the record. The impugned orders do not suffer from any patent illegality ::: Uploaded on - 17/02/2016 ::: Downloaded on - 31/07/2016 03:30:05 ::: 5 wp3879.08 or perversity. I see no reason to interfere with the impugned order.
The petition is dismissed. In the circumstances, the parties to bear their own costs.
JUDGE pma ::: Uploaded on - 17/02/2016 ::: Downloaded on - 31/07/2016 03:30:05 :::