Bombay High Court
Babulal S/O Atmaram Kamble vs Universal Ferro Allied Chemicals Ltd. ... on 13 March, 2019
Author: A.S. Chandurkar
Bench: A.S. Chandurkar
WPs 5550TO5557,5563,5564/09&1624/10 1 Common Judgment
IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY,
NAGPUR BENCH, NAGPUR.
WRIT PETITION NO. 5550/2009
Ramdas S/o Hataru Bhoyar,
Aged about 62 years, Occu. Nil,
R/o Dhorwada, Post Madgi,
Tah. Tumsar, Dist. Bhandara. PETITIONER
.....VERSUS.....
Chemicals and Ferro Alloys Pvt. Ltd.
Having its registered office at Liberty
Building, Sir Vithaldas Thackersey Marg,
New Marine Line, Mumbai-400 020. RESPONDENT
WITH
WRIT PETITION NO. 5551/2009
Joshi S/o Jago Atilkar,
Aged about 52 years, Occu. Nil,
R/o Post Madgi, Tah. Tumsar, Dist. Bhandara. PETITIONER
.....VERSUS.....
Chemicals and Ferro Alloys Pvt. Ltd.
Having its registered office at Liberty
Building, Sir Vithaldas Thackersey Marg,
New Marine Line, Mumbai-400 020. RESPONDENT
WITH
WRIT PETITION NO. 5552/2009
Fulchand S/o Dayaram Wanve,
Aged about 54 years, Occu. Nil,
R/o Dhorwada, Post Madgi,
Tah. Tumsar, Dist. Bhandara. PETITIONER
.....VERSUS.....
Chemicals and Ferro Alloys Pvt. Ltd.
Having its registered office at Liberty
Building, Sir Vithaldas Thackersey Marg,
New Marine Line, Mumbai-400 020. RESPONDENT
::: Uploaded on - 15/03/2019 ::: Downloaded on - 15/03/2019 23:25:36 :::
WPs 5550TO5557,5563,5564/09&1624/10 2 Common Judgment
WITH
WRIT PETITION NO. 5553/2009
Baburao S/o Ganpat Meshram,
Aged about 60 years, Occu. Nil,
R/o Manora, Post Kesalwada,
Tah. Tiroda, Dist. Gondia. PETITIONER
.....VERSUS.....
Chemicals and Ferro Alloys Pvt. Ltd.
Having its registered office at Liberty
Building, Sir Vithaldas Thackersey Marg,
New Marine Line, Mumbai-400 020. RESPONDENT
WITH
WRIT PETITION NO. 5554/2009
Roopchand S/o Choteylal Barve,
Aged about 54 years, Occu. Nil,
R/o Manora, Post Kesalwada,
Tah. Tiroda, Dist. Gondia. PETITIONER
.....VERSUS.....
Chemicals and Ferro Alloys Pvt. Ltd.
Having its registered office at Liberty
Building, Sir Vithaldas Thackersey Marg,
New Marine Line, Mumbai-400 020. RESPONDENT
WITH
WRIT PETITION NO. 5555/2009
Shankar S/o Fattu Madame,
Aged about 55 years, Occu. Nil,
R/o Madgi, Post Madgi,
Tah. Tumsar, Dist. Bhandara. PETITIONER
.....VERSUS.....
Chemicals and Ferro Alloys Pvt. Ltd.
Having its registered office at Liberty
Building, Sir Vithaldas Thackersey Marg,
New Marine Line, Mumbai-400 020. RESPONDENT
::: Uploaded on - 15/03/2019 ::: Downloaded on - 15/03/2019 23:25:36 :::
WPs 5550TO5557,5563,5564/09&1624/10 3 Common Judgment
WITH
WRIT PETITION NO. 5556/2009
Abhiman S/o Chepa Thakre,
Aged about 56 years, Occu. Nil,
R/o Chargaon, Post Madgi,
Tah. Tumsar, Dist. Bhandara. PETITIONER
.....VERSUS.....
Chemicals and Ferro Alloys Pvt. Ltd.
Having its registered office at Liberty
Building, Sir Vithaldas Thackersey Marg,
New Marine Line, Mumbai-400 020. RESPONDENT
WITH
WRIT PETITION NO. 5557/2009
Ambalal S/o Bakaram Fulbandhe,
Aged about 49 years, Occu. Nil,
R/o Manora, Post Kesalwada,
Tah. Tiroda, Dist. Gondia. PETITIONER
.....VERSUS.....
Chemicals and Ferro Alloys Pvt. Ltd.
Having its registered office at Liberty
Building, Sir Vithaldas Thackersey Marg,
New Marine Line, Mumbai-400 020. RESPONDENT
WITH
WRIT PETITION NO. 5563/2009
Chhango S/o Govinda Kukde,
Aged about 54 years, Occu. Nil,
R/o Dhorwada, Post Madgi,
Tah. Tumsar, Dist. Bhandara. PETITIONER
.....VERSUS.....
Chemicals and Ferro Alloys Pvt. Ltd.
Having its registered office at Liberty
Building, Sir Vithaldas Thackersey Marg,
New Marine Line, Mumbai-400 020. RESPONDENT
::: Uploaded on - 15/03/2019 ::: Downloaded on - 15/03/2019 23:25:36 :::
WPs 5550TO5557,5563,5564/09&1624/10 4 Common Judgment
WITH
WRIT PETITION NO. 5564/2009
Babulal S/o Atmaram Kamble,
Aged about 49 years, Occu. Nil,
R/o Chargaon, Post Madgi,
Tah. Tumsar, Dist. Bhandara. PETITIONER
.....VERSUS.....
Chemicals and Ferro Alloys Pvt. Ltd.
Having its registered office at Liberty
Building, Sir Vithaldas Thackersey Marg,
New Marine Line, Mumbai-400 020. RESPONDENT
WITH
WRIT PETITION NO. 1624/2010
Parasram S/o Motiram Sonwane,
Aged about 54 years, Occu. Nil,
R/o Chargaon, Post Madgi,
Tah. Tumsar, Dist. Bhandara. PETITIONER
.....VERSUS.....
Chemicals and Ferro Alloys Pvt. Ltd.
Having its registered office at Liberty
Building, Sir Vithaldas Thackersey Marg,
New Marine Line, Mumbai-400 020. RESPONDENT
Shri V.D. Raut, counsel for petitioner in all the petitions.
Shri H.N. Verma, counsel for respondent in all the petitions.
CORAM : A.S. CHANDURKAR, J.
DATE : 13TH MARCH, 2019.
ORAL JUDGMENT
Since identical orders are challenged in these writ petitions, they are being decided by this common judgment. ::: Uploaded on - 15/03/2019 ::: Downloaded on - 15/03/2019 23:25:36 ::: WPs 5550TO5557,5563,5564/09&1624/10 5 Common Judgment
2. The proceedings arise out of adjudication of applications filed under Section 33-C(2) of the Industrial Disputes Act, 1947 (for short, 'the said Act') whereby the Labour Court, after recording a finding that the rights of the petitioners to seek such relief has not been adjudicated earlier has proceeded to dismiss those applications.
3. According to the petitioners, they were working on daily wages but their services were terminated sometime in June-1999. Since wages were not paid from March-1997 till March-1999, they filed applications under Section 33-C(2) of the said Act seeking necessary relief. In the reply filed on behalf of the respondent, the entitlement of the petitioners was denied. It was further pleaded that during the period of lay off, 50% wages had been paid to each petitioner. Thereafter in the Voluntary Retirement Scheme floated by the respondent, each petitioner had taken benefit thereof and hence no relief could be granted to the petitioners. The Labour Court by the impugned judgment has dismissed the said applications after recording a finding that the petitioners had not proved their entitlement for being granted any relief under Section 33-C(2) of the said Act.
::: Uploaded on - 15/03/2019 ::: Downloaded on - 15/03/2019 23:25:36 ::: WPs 5550TO5557,5563,5564/09&1624/10 6 Common Judgment
4. During pendency of the writ petitions, the respondent has filed a pursis alongwith various documents to indicate that the Voluntary Retirement Scheme that was floated by the respondent was accepted by all the petitioners and after acknowledging that they have received all benefits thereunder, the amounts in question were accepted. That acceptance was in full and final settlement of service benefits. Reference is also made to the order passed in Letters Patent Appeal No.332 of 2006 by the Division Bench of this Court in which it has been observed that an individual employee was not entitled to raise a dispute seeking a declaration that the settlement under the scheme was illegal.
5. After hearing learned counsel for the parties, it is clear from the record that there is no earlier adjudication in favour of the petitioners on the basis of which they can claim any relief under Section 33-C(2) of the said Act. That finding has not been shown to be incorrect. On the contrary, having accepted the benefits under the Voluntary Retirement Scheme in the year 1999, it was not open for the petitioners to have sought such a relief in the year 2005. In that view of the matter, no error is found in the impugned order to warrant interference in writ jurisdiction.
::: Uploaded on - 15/03/2019 ::: Downloaded on - 15/03/2019 23:25:36 ::: WPs 5550TO5557,5563,5564/09&1624/10 7 Common Judgment
6. Hence, the writ petitions are dismissed with no order as to costs.
(A.S. CHANDURKAR, J.) APTE ::: Uploaded on - 15/03/2019 ::: Downloaded on - 15/03/2019 23:25:36 :::