Supreme Court - Daily Orders
M/S.Lokmat Proprietors vs Shalikram Shriram Waghade on 10 November, 2016
Bench: Dipak Misra, Amitava Roy
CA 6097/2011
1
IN THE SUPREME COURT OF INDIA
CIVIL APPELLATE JURISDICTION
CIVIL APPEAL NO.6097 OF 2011
M/s. Lokmat Proprietors Appellant(s)
Versus
Shalikram Shriram Waghade Respondent(s)
WITH
CIVIL APPEAL NO.6096 OF 2011
CIVIL APPEAL NO.6098 OF 2011
CIVIL APPEAL NO.6099 OF 2011
CIVIL APPEAL NO.6100 OF 2011
CIVIL APPEAL NO.6101 OF 2011
CIVIL APPEAL NO.6102 OF 2011
CIVIL APPEAL NO.6103 OF 2011
CIVIL APPEAL NO.6104 OF 2011
CIVIL APPEAL NO.6105 OF 2011
CIVIL APPEAL NO.6106 OF 2011
CIVIL APPEAL NO.6107 OF 2011
CIVIL APPEAL NO.6108 OF 2011
CIVIL APPEAL NO.6109 OF 2011
O R D E R
Heard Mr. Basava Prabhu Patil, learned senior counsel for the appellant and Mr. S.D. Thakur, learned counsel for the respondents.
Signature Not Verified
The respondents-workmen filed complaints under Digitally signed by Section 28 of the Maharashtra Recoginition of Trade Unions CHETAN KUMAR Date: 2016.11.15 16:59:24 IST Reason:
and Prevention of Unfair Labour Practices Act, 1971 (hereinafter referred to as 'the Act'). The complaints CA 6097/2011 2 initially were filed claiming regularization and permanency and wages as per the Palekar and Bachhawat award. The complaint was filed on 10th October, 1996. Thereafter, the respondents filed application under Section 30(2) claiming minimum wages as per the provisions of the Minimum Wages Act, which stood rejected on 29th April, 1998. Thereafter, the applications were filed seeking amendment of the complaints pointing out that there services had been terminated with effect from 1st May, 1998. During the pendency of the application seeking regularization, the employer contested the application taking the stand that there was no relationship of employer and employee and the complainants were never employed by the employer and, therefore, the provisions of the Act were not applicable.
The Industrial Court on 12th February, 2002, had passed an award directing as follows:-
“It is declared that the respondent has engaged in unfair labour practice covered under Item 9 of Schedule IV of the MRTU and PULP Act, 1971 by keeping the complainants on daily wages even though they have rendered continuous service of 240 days in twelve calendar months.
The complainants are entitled to be made permanent by the respondent from the date they completed 240 days' continuous service, with all consequential benefits.” The said award was challenged before the writ court and, ultimately, the High Court vide order dated 8th & 10th October, 2008, came to hold that the documents filed by the CA 6097/2011 3 employees established the payment, control, supervision of the appellant herein and the factum that they were working under it, stood established. Thus, the High Court gave the stamp of approval with regard to existence of relationship of employer and employee between the parties. As noticed from the impugned order of the High Court, it has dismissed the writ petition without granting any relief to the present appellant.
Having heard learned counsel for the parties, we find that the Industrial Court has arrived at the conclusion with regard to relationship and the termination during the pendency of the case. The same has been arrived at on appropriate appreciation of the evidence brought on record by the High Court. It has scrutinized the matters quite carefully and concurred with the view expressed by the Industrial Court. As the entire case hinges on the re-appreciation of factual scenario, we are not inclined to disturb the same.
It is submitted by Mr. Patil, learned senior counsel appearing for the appellant that even if the respondents are regularized with effect from the date the Industrial Court has fixed, grant of consequential benefits for the entire period will break the financial spine of the appellant which is running a newspaper establishment. Mr. Thakur, learned counsel appearing for the respondents-workmen would submit CA 6097/2011 4 that they have suffered enough for no fault of theirs and, therefore, no leniency should be shown.
Considering the factual matrix in entirety, we are inclined to modify the award only to the extent that the respondents shall be regularized as directed by the Industrial Court, but the consequential benefits, that is, the back wages on the basis of regular pay scale, shall be restricted to 45 per cent. Needless to say, by virtue of this order, any other disputes pending between the employer and employee shall be deemed to have been disposed of. As the reinstatement has already been done, the amount directed by us shall be paid within three months hence.
The appeals are, accordingly, disposed of. There shall be no order as to costs.
......................J. (Dipak Misra) ......................J. (Amitava Roy) New Delhi;
November 10, 2016.
CA 6097/20115
ITEM NO.102 COURT NO.4 SECTION XV S U P R E M E C O U R T O F I N D I A RECORD OF PROCEEDINGS Civil Appeal No.6097/2011 M/S.LOKMAT PROPRIETORS Appellant(s) VERSUS SHALIKRAM SHRIRAM WAGHADE Respondent(s) (With office report) WITH C.A. No.6096/2011 (With office report) C.A. No.6098/2011 (With office report) C.A. No. 6099/2011 (With office report) C.A. No. 6100/2011 (With office report) C.A. No. 6101/2011 (With office report) C.A. No. 6102/2011 (With office report) C.A. No. 6103/2011 (With office report) C.A. No. 6104/2011 (With office report) C.A. No. 6105/2011 (With office report) C.A. No. 6106/2011 (With office report) C.A. No. 6107/2011 (With office report) C.A. No. 6108/2011 (With office report) C.A. No. 6109/2011 (With office report) Date : 10/11/2016 These appeals were called on for hearing today. CORAM :
HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE DIPAK MISRA HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE AMITAVA ROY CA 6097/2011 6 For Appellant(s) Mr. Basava Prabhu Patil, Sr. Adv.
Mr. Akash Kakade, Adv.
Ms. Anagha S. Desai, AOR Mr. Manish Pitale, Adv.
Mr. Chander Shekhar Ashri, AOR For Respondent(s) Mr. S.D. Thakur, Adv.
Ms. Chandan Ramamurthi, AOR UPON hearing the counsel the Court made the following O R D E R The appeals are disposed of in terms of the signed order.
(Chetan Kumar) (H.S. Parasher)
Court Master Court Master
(Signed order is placed on the file)