Bombay High Court
Raju Rangdeoji Dhale vs Municipal Council, Wardha, Thr. Chief ... on 9 August, 2021
Author: A.S. Chandurkar
Bench: A.S. Chandurkar, G.A. Sanap
204.lpa102.2011(Judg).odt
1/7
IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY
NAGPUR BENCH, NAGPUR.
LETTERS PATENT APPEAL NO. 102 OF 2011
Raju s/o Rangdeoji Dhale
R/o. Channaki Kopara,
Post : Kopara, Tah. Seloo,
Distt. Wardha .... APPELLANT
// VERSUS //
Municipal Council,
Wardha, Through its Chief Officer,
Near Civil Hospital, Wardha .... RESPONDENT
Mr. S.A. Kalbande, Advocate for appellant.
Mr. Abhay Sambre, Advocate for respondent.
________________________________________________________________
CORAM : A.S. CHANDURKAR AND
G.A. SANAP, JJ.
DATE : 9th AUGUST, 2021.
ORAL JUDGMENT: [PER:- A.S. Chandurkar, J.]
Heard finally with the consent of the learned counsel for the parties.
2. The challenge raised in the Letters Patent Appeal is to the judgment of learned Single Judge in Writ Petition No.774/2006. By the said judgment the writ petition filed by the respondent herein challenging the award passed by the Labour Court on 08.10.2005 in favour of the appellant was allowed and that award was set aside.
::: Uploaded on - 10/08/2021 ::: Downloaded on - 11/08/2021 01:51:37 :::
204.lpa102.2011(Judg).odt 2/7
3. It is the case of the appellant that he was engaged as a labourer on 20.09.1994 with the Municipal Council, Wardha. He was continued without any break in service. His services were discontinued on 01.04.1999 orally without complying with the provisions of Section 25-F of the Industrial Disputes Act, 1947 (herein after referred to as "the Act of 1947"). It was further the case that about four labourers junior in service to the appellant were retained and on that count, he approached the Assistant Commissioner of Labour, who thereafter made a reference. The Labour Court accordingly entertained those proceedings. In the written statement filed by the respondent the case of the appellant was denied. It was stated that the appellant had worked only for the period from 20.09.1994 to 03.11.1995. From 04.11.1995 the work of collecting garbage was undertaken by calling tenders from private contractors. It was denied that the appellant worked on daily wages till 01.04.1999.
4. The parties led evidence before the Labour Court and after considering the same, the learned Judge of the Labour Court recorded a finding that the appellant has worked for the period from 20.09.1994 to 03.11.1995. It held that the respondent did not ::: Uploaded on - 10/08/2021 ::: Downloaded on - 11/08/2021 01:51:37 :::
204.lpa102.2011(Judg).odt 3/7 file any document to show that the appellant was not in employment from 03.11.1995 to 01.04.1999. After finding that there was no compliance with the provisions of Section 25-F and Section 25-G of the said Act and that the seniority list under Rule 81 of the Maharashtra Industrial Rules (for short, the said Rules) had not been published, the reference was answered in the affirmative. While directing reinstatement of the appellant, the relief of back wages was refused. The respondent being aggrieved by the aforesaid order filed Writ Petition No.774/2006. The learned Single Judge found that there was no averment in the statement of claim that immediately preceding the date of termination, the appellant had worked for 240 days. It was further found that as per the evidence led by the respondent, there were five labourers senior to the appellant and that he was the most junior amongst them. As there was no violation of the provisions of Section 25-F of the Act of 1947, the award passed by the Labour Court was set aside and the writ petition came to be allowed. Being aggrieved the appellant has filed the present Letters Patent Appeal.
5. Shri S.A. Kalbande, learned counsel for the appellant submitted that the oral termination of the appellant on 01.04.1999 ::: Uploaded on - 10/08/2021 ::: Downloaded on - 11/08/2021 01:51:37 :::
204.lpa102.2011(Judg).odt 4/7 was effected without complying with the provisions of Section 25-F & 25-G of the Act of 1947. It was specifically pleaded in the statement of claim that the oral termination was effected on 01.04.1999 and therefore, it was for the respondent to show that the appellant had not worked during that period. The respondent did not place on record the muster roll and the Labour Court, therefore, was justified in granting relief to the appellant. He further submitted that the seniority list as required under Rule 81 of the said Rules was also not published and juniors in service had been retained. Reference was made to the adjudication in Writ Petition No. 5631/2006 (The Chief Officer Vs. Chandrakant Mahadeorao) decided on 23.09.2010 and it was submitted that this Court did not interfere with the award passed by the Labour Court granting relief to the complainant therein. Placing reliance on the decisions in the case of Anoop Sharma Vs. Executive Engineer, Public Health Division No.1, Panipat (Haryana) 2010(5) SCC 497, Maharashtra State Board of Secondary and Higher Secondary Educatin, Amravati and anr. Vs. Sanjay Krishnarao Shrungare, Amravati 2008(2) CLR 301 and Director, Fisheries Terminal Department Vs. Bhikubhai Meghajibhai Chavda 2010(1) SCC 47, it was submitted that the ::: Uploaded on - 10/08/2021 ::: Downloaded on - 11/08/2021 01:51:37 :::
204.lpa102.2011(Judg).odt 5/7 appellant was entitled for appropriate relief which was rightly granted by the Labour Court.
6. Shri Abhay Sambre, learned counsel for the respondent supported the impugned judgment. According to him, the appellant was in service during the period from 1994 to 1995 and not thereafter. He had produced muster roll for that period but failed to produce any other material to indicate service prior to 04.11.1999. The respondent had led evidence to show that juniors had not been retained in service. Work of collecting garbage from November 1995 had been assigned to private contractors by calling for tenders and therefore, the learned Single Judge rightly found that in absence of evidence on record the appellant was not entitled for any relief.
7. We have heard the learned counsel for the parties at length and we have also perused the material placed on record. It is the case of the appellant that he was engaged with the respondent from 20.09.1994 and his services were orally terminated on 04.11.1999. The muster roll produced on record at Exhibit-15 by the appellant is for the period from 20.09.1994 to 03.11.1995. There is no further material placed on record by the appellant to ::: Uploaded on - 10/08/2021 ::: Downloaded on - 11/08/2021 01:51:37 :::
204.lpa102.2011(Judg).odt 6/7 indicate completion of continuous service of 240 days prior to 04.11.1999. On the contrary, it was an admitted position that from 04.11.1995 the work of collecting garbage was assigned to private contractors. It is pertinent to note that though the appellant could file the muster roll from 20.09.1994 to 03.11.1995, he did not take any steps to produce further material nor was any notice given to the respondent to produce muster rolls on record. This fact has been noted in the impugned judgment and that is the distinguishable feature in the present proceedings and in Writ Petition No.5631/2006. The witness examined by the respondent has in clear terms stated that the appellant was the junior most amongst six employees named in the complaint. This aspect has also been noticed by the learned Single Judge in the impugned judgment.
As regard to the reliance placed on the decisions by the learned counsel for the appellant there can be no dispute with the legal proposition laid down therein. However, if the facts of the present case are concerned, the ratio laid down therein cannot be made applicable to the case in hand. We find that the learned Single Judge has considered all the material on record and had concluded that there was no violation of the provisions of Section 25-F and 25- G of the Act of 1947. We do not find that there is any illegality ::: Uploaded on - 10/08/2021 ::: Downloaded on - 11/08/2021 01:51:37 :::
204.lpa102.2011(Judg).odt 7/7 committed while allowing the writ petition filed by the respondent. Consequently, we do not find any merit in the Letters Patent Appeal.
It is accordingly dismissed, leaving the parties to bear their own costs.
JUDGE JUDGE
Prity
::: Uploaded on - 10/08/2021 ::: Downloaded on - 11/08/2021 01:51:37 :::