Bombay High Court
The Chief Executive Officer Municipal ... vs Ratnabai Manohar Bamnikar on 24 June, 2024
-1-
wp6050.24.odt
IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE OF BOMBAY
BENCH AT AURANGABAD
20 WRIT PETITION NO. 6050 OF 2024
The Chief Executive Officer ....Petitioner
VERSUS
Abdul Rajjak Abdul Gaffar .....Respondent
.....
WITH
WRIT PETITION NO. 6058 OF 2024
The Chief Executive Officer .....Petitioner
VERSUS
Syed Nasir Syed Murtaja Hussain .....Respondent
.....
WITH
WRIT PETITION NO. 6054 OF 2024
The Chief Executive Officer .....Petitioner
VERSUS
Shaikh Hamid Ahmed .....Respondent
WITH
WRIT PETITION NO. 6055 OF 2024
The Chief Executive Officer .....Petitioner
VERSUS
Chandar Nagu Chaudhari .....Respondent
-2-
wp6050.24.odt
WITH
WRIT PETITION NO. 6056 OF 2024
The Chief Executive Officer .....Petitioner
VERSUS
Machindra Tryambak Gaikwad .....Respondent
WITH
WRIT PETITION NO. 6057 OF 2024
The Chief Executive Officer .....Petitioner
VERSUS
Shaikh Atik Hadi .....Respondent
WITH
WRIT PETITION NO. 6052 OF 2024
The Chief Executive Officer .....Petitioner
VERSUS
Bhagabai Vaijinath Gandare .....Respondent
WITH
WRIT PETITION NO. 6051 OF 2024
The Chief Executive Officer .....Petitioner
VERSUS
Ratnabai Manohar Bamnikar .....Respondent
-3-
wp6050.24.odt
WITH
WRIT PETITION NO. 6053 OF 2024
The Chief Executive Officer .....Petitioner
VERSUS
Ustad Shabir Ahmed Pasha .....Respondent
.....
Mr. P. V. Barde, Advocate for the Petitioner.
CORAM : R. M. JOSHI, J.
DATE :24th JUNE, 2024.
PER COURT :
1. Heard.
2. Issue notice to the Respondents, returnable on 26.08.2024.
3. Learned counsel for the Petitioner submits that the Respondents/workmen whose status was also challenged by the Petitioner/Corporation had raised the claim of wages after a period of almost 13 years from 2004 onwards. It is his submission by relying upon judgments in case of S. Shivraj Reddy (died) through LRs and another vs. S. Raghuraj Reddy and others, 2024 DGLS(SC) 521, Rushibhai Jagdishbhai Pathak vs. Bhavnagar Muicipal Corporation, 2022 DGLS (SC) 587, Jaihind Sahakari Pani Purvatha Mandali -4- wp6050.24.odt Limited vs. Rajendra Bandu khot and others, 2019 DGLS(Bom) 1590 and Brihan Mumbai Electric Supply and Transport Undertaking (BEST) vs. BEST Jagrut Kamgar Sanghatana and others, 2023 DGLS(Bom) 2017 that the learned Industrial Court has committed error in granting payment of wages along with arrears for the entire period. It is his submission that in view of the law settled by the Hon'ble Supreme Court in judgments cited supra, arrears could have been granted at the most for the period of three years and not beyond that.
4. Prima facie perusal of the record indicates that a complaint is filed before the Industrial Court stating that Respondents worked on holidays from 2004 to 2017 and were not paid wages for the same. Payment of Wages Act mandates the employer to pay wages for the work performed by the workmen. Such payment is to be made irrespective of the fact whether the workers demand such payment or not. Non-payment of wages for the work performed by the workmen is the continuous cause of action. The judgments cited supra pertain to the issue of pay fixation, revision, increments, wrong computation etc. The observations made by the -5- wp6050.24.odt Hon'ble Supreme Court in case of Union of India and another vs. Tarsem Lal and others, 2006 SCC (10) 145 are quoted as under :-
"7. To summarise, normally, a belated service related claim will be rejected on the ground of delay and laches (where remedy is sought by filing a writ petition) or limitation (where remedy is sought by an application to the Administrative Tribunal). One of the exceptions to the said rule is cases relating to a continuing wrong. Where a service related claim is based on a continuing wrong, relief can be granted even if there is a long delay in seeking remedy, with reference to the date on which the continuing wrong commenced, if such continuing wrong creates a continuing source of inquiry. But there is an exception to the exception. If the grievance is in respect of any order or administrative decision which related to or affected several others also, and if the reopening of the issue would affect the settled rights of third parties, then the claim will not be entertained. For example, if the issue relates to payment of re-fixation of pay or pension, relief may be granted in spite of delay as it does not affect the rights of third parties. But if the claim involved issues relating to seniority or promotion etc. , affecting others, delay would render the claim stale and doctrine of laches/limitation will be applied. Insofar as the consequential relief of recovery of arrears for a pat period, the principles relating to -6- wp6050.24.odt recurring/successive wrongs will apply. As a consequence, High Courts will restrict the consequential relief relating to arrears normally to a period of three years prior to the date of filing of the writ petition."
This observation also shows that wherever there is case based on continuous wrong, the question of application of limitation does not arise.
5. Having regard to the aforestated facts, though notice is issued to the Respondents, there would not be any stay to the impugned order passed by the Industrial Court.
( R. M. JOSHI) Judge dyb