Bombay High Court
Nandlal S/O Asaram Borkar vs Forest Devp. Corporation Of Maha. Thr ... on 8 October, 2021
Author: Avinash G. Gharote
Bench: Avinash G. Gharote
1 218.WP.1804-2010.odt
IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY
NAGPUR BENCH AT NAGPUR
WRIT PETITION NO. 1804 OF 2010
( Nandlal S/o Asaram Borkar
Vs.
Forest Development Corporation of Maharashtra , Thr. Its Managing
Director & Ors. )
Office Notes, Office Memoranda Court's or Judge's orders
of Coram, Appearances, Court's
orders or directions and
Registrar's orders
Shri A.R. Patil, Advocate for the petitioner.
Ms. Tajwar Khan, Advocate for the respondent Nos. 1 to 3.
Shri A.A. Madiwale, AGP for the respondent No.4/State.
CORAM: AVINASH G. GHAROTE, J.
DATED : 08th OCTOBER, 2021.
The petitioner claims to have been engaged as a Chowkidar, by the respondent Nos. 1 to 3 and has worked from 1991 to 1997 with the respondent Nos. 1 to
3. A claim, that the petitioner was orally terminated was raised before the learned Labour Court, Gondia which has granted reinstatement without back-wages, on the ground of violation of Section 25-F of the Industrial Disputes Act, 1947. The contention, that the petitioner was engaged as a Chowkidar, is claimed to have been admitted by DW.1 Mr. Dudharam Narayanrao Aswale, in his cross-examination at record page No. 53. DW.1, is a retired R.F.O.
2. The respondent Nos. 1 to 3 contend, that the engagement of the petitioner was an unskilled ::: Uploaded on - 08/10/2021 ::: Downloaded on - 09/10/2021 08:46:24 ::: 2 218.WP.1804-2010.odt manual labour, under the Employment Guarantee Scheme ( for short "E.G.S."), which scheme was created by virtue of Section 3 of the Maharashtra Employment Guarantee Act, 1977, and therefore, it is their contention that the petitioner was not employed in a regular service, but under the E.G.S., and therefore, the question of applicability of Section 25-F of the Industrial Disputes, Act did not arise altogether.
3. In support of their contention, the petitioner was engaged under the E.G.S. the reliance has been placed on muster rolls at Exhs. 57 to 59, muster rolls of E.G.S. activity, wherein, the name of the petitioner is included, and which, muster rolls have been signed by the petitioner.
4. Ms. Khan, learned counsel for the respondent Nos. 1 to 3, inviting my attention to the muster rolls at Exh. 57 and onwards indicates, that the engagement under the E.G.S., is not restricted to any singular work, but under clause 3 of the attendance sheet for the E.G.S. engagement, it has been made clear, that the persons engaged will have to do any work assigned and directed by the authorities. She therefore, submits, that even if there is an admission on the part of the DW.1 in his cross-examination, that the petitioner was engaged as a Chowkidar, the same would stand covered under clause 3 of the muster roll as indicated above (Exh. 57 onwards).
::: Uploaded on - 08/10/2021 ::: Downloaded on - 09/10/2021 08:46:24 :::3 218.WP.1804-2010.odt
5. Mr. Patil, learned counsel for the petitioner, however, invites my attention to the definition of Unskiled Manual Work, as defined in section 2(m) of the Maharashtra Employment Guarantee Act, 1977, that the job of a Chowkidar, would not fall within the definition, in which case, it will have to be held that the petitioner was not employed under the E.G.S., but which, employment was otherwise on the regular basis, and therefore, the provisions of section 25-F of the Industrial Disputes, Act would clearly be attracted as the termination was without following of the requirement of the aforesaid Section.
6. The entire position therefore, turns upon the definition of Unskiled Manual Work and whether a Chowkidar falls within this definition.
7. Mr. Patil learned counsel for the petitioner and Ms. Khan, learned counsel for the respondent Nos. 1 to 3 seeks a short adjournment, to address on this issue.
8. List the matter on 13.10.2021 as a part heard.
JUDGE SD. Bhimte ::: Uploaded on - 08/10/2021 ::: Downloaded on - 09/10/2021 08:46:24 :::