High Court
Facts
4181.20wp(1) IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY BENCH AT AURANGABAD WRIT PETITION NO.4181 OF 2020Ganpat Namdev Wagh,Age: 56 years, Occu: Labour,R/o. Waghacha Akhada, Tq : Rahuri,Dist. Ahmednagar….PETITIONERVERSUS1.Maharashtra State Co-operative Marketing Federation Ltd.,Kanmoor House, Narsi Natha Street,Mumbai 400 009Through its Managing Director2.Vaibhav Cattle Food Factory At Nepti, Taluka and District Ahmednagar,Through its Manager ….RESPONDENTS ….Mr Parag V. Barde, Advocate for petitioner Ms S. T. Jadhav, Advocate h/f Mr D. N. Suryawanshi, Advocate, for respondents CORAM : PRAFULLA S. KHUBALKAR, J. RESERVED ON : 24th June, 2025 PRONOUNCED ON : 07th July, 2025JUDGMENT :1.Heard. Rule. Rule made returnable forthwith. Heardfinally by consent of the parties. 4181.20wp(2) 2.Heard Advocate Mr Barde, learned counsel for thepetitioner and Advocate Ms Jadhav, holding for Advocate MrSuryawanshi, learned counsel for the respondents.3.By this petition, the petitioner has challenged the awarddated 26/03/2018, passed by the Presiding Officer of the First LabourCourt, Ahmednagar, to the extent of clause (3) of the operative order,by which, compensation of Rs. 1,50,000/-in lieu of reinstatement,continuity of service and back wages is granted, alleging this to beinadequate compensation. By this petition, the petitioner is seeking anenhancement of compensation based on the facts and grounds pleadedin the petition.4.Advocate Mr Barde, learned counsel for the petitionersubmits that the petitioner was employed with the respondents and wasillegally terminated. The petitioner has, thereafter filed referenceunder Section 10(1)(c) of the Industrial Disputes Act, 1947 and thematter was referred before the First Labour Court, Ahmednagar, videReference (I.D.A.) No.67/2007. It is submitted that the parties hadlaid evidence in the reference case and the learned Labour Court hasrecorded categorical finding that there existed an employer-employeerelationship between the petitioner and the respondents. On
Legal Reasoning
4181.20wp(3) appreciation of the evidence on record, the Labour Court has also gavea categorical finding that the petitioner/employee was illegallyterminated by the respondents by oral order dated 17/10/1996. It ispointed out that, after appreciation of evidence, the Court hasspecifically observed that the termination of the petitioner/employeewas illegal, improper and bad in law on account of non-compliancewith the provisions of Section 25(F) of the Industrial Disputes Act,1947. It is submitted that, despite this categorical finding, in order tostrike balance, since reinstatement could not be ordered as the factorywas closed down, the respondents are directed to pay compensation ofRs.1,50,000/- (One Lakh Fifty Thousand only). It is vehementlysubmitted that the petitioner had worked with the respondents fromJanuary 1994 to 17/10/1996 and the compensation granted by theLabour Court is grossly inadequate.5.Advocate Mr Barde for the petitioner submits that, inview of the categorical finding of the termination of the petitionerbeing illegal, the Labour Court ought to have granted compensation tothe petitioner after considering the position of law requiringconsideration of the period of service. In support of his submissions,he relies on the judgment in the matter of Ashok BhikanraoDeshmukh Vs. The State of Maharashtra and others, [2024 MCR 4181.20wp(4) 135 : 2024 (2) SLR 111], relying on which, the learned Single Judgeof this Court has decided Writ Petition No.8032/2020 on 15/10/2024 inthe matter of State of Maharashtra Vs. Nilkant RamchandraSonwane. By inviting Court’s attention to the position of law laiddown in these judgments, he submits that the petitioner is entitled forcompensation @ Rs.1,00,000/- per year of service.6.Per contra, Advocate Ms Jadhav for respondents stronglyopposes the petition. She submits that the petitioner had worked for avery short period of less than three years with the respondents and hehas also admitted categorically that, during the pendency of theproceeding, he has been earning wages of Rs.100/- per day. Shesubmits that the petitioner had raised the stale claim, which ought notto have been entertained, particularly, in view of the fact that thefactory of the respondents was already closed down and there was noquestion of reinstatement. 7.Rival contentions thus fall for my consideration.8.It is pertinent to note that the petitioner’s grievance in thepetition is with respect to the part of the award related to quantum ofcompensation. There is no dispute that the petitioner has worked fromJanuary 1994 to 17/10/1996. It has to be noted that the reference made 4181.20wp(5) by the petitioner was firstly adjudicated by the Court on 18/09/2012.The respondents herein had challenged the said order by filing WritPetition No.4334/2013 before this Court and the matter was remandedback for framing proper issues. Thereafter, the proceedings wereconducted afresh and the final award dated 26/03/2018 was passed. Assuch, the parties were litigating during the entire period and thepetitioner was required to contest second round of litigation forestablishing the illegality of the termination. As such, the contentionsof the respondents that the petitioner has raised a stale claim appear tobe baseless. 9.It is crucial to note that the Labour Court has recordedcategorical finding that the termination of the employee was illegal,improper and bad in law for non-compliance of the provisions ofSection 25(F) of the Industrial Disputes Act, 1947. The respondentshave not raised challenge to this finding. Thus, in view of the fact thatthe factory of respondents was closed down and reinstatement was notpossible, the petitioner became entitled for award of appropriatecompensation in lieu of reinstatement, continuity of service and backwages. The reasoning of the Labour Court, Ahmednagar, whileconsidering this issue and awarding Rs.1,50,000/- as compensation, by 4181.20wp(6) considering the petitioner’s earning as daily wager to Rs.100/- per day,appears to be unsound. It has to be noted that, when the employee wasterminated, he was not expected to starve and his earning of Rs.100/-per day as daily wages, cannot be considered to be a gainfulemployment.10.As regards the issue of factors to be considered whilegranting compensation in lieu of reinstatement, a profitable referenceneeds to be made to the judgment of Ashok Bhikanrao Deshmukh(supra). The Division Bench of this Court, after considering variousjudgments of the Hon’ble Supreme Court has clarified the position inparagraph Nos.13 to 15, which are reproduced below :-“13. The Hon'ble Supreme Court has held in (1) AssistantEngineer, Rajasthan State Agriculture Marketing Board, Sub-Division, Kota Vs. Mohanlal - [2013 LLR 1009], (2) AssistantEngineer, Rajasthan Development Corporation and another Vs.Gitam Singh - [(2013) 5 SCC 136], (3) BSNL Vs. Man Singh -[(2012) 1 SCC 558] and (4) Jagbir Singh Vs. Haryana StateAgriculture Marketing Board - [(2009) 15 SCC 327], that if anemployee is working for a very short period and is out ofemployment for a long duration, granting reinstatement inservice or absorption would be impracticable. Instead, he couldbe granted compensation for the number of years of service thathe has put in. The learned AGP vehemently opposes grant ofcompensation on the ground that when an EGS worker is notentitled for any benefits, merely because he is litigating, heshould not be granted any compensation. 4181.20wp(7) 14. The judgments referred to herein above, were delivered inbetween 2009 and 2013 when the Hon'ble Supreme Courtdirected compensation between Rs.40,000/- to Rs.50,000/- peryear of service put in by the employee. We are inclined toenhance the compensation amount since the Petitioner hasworked for two years and is litigating for the last about 37years. He has reached the age of 60 years as on date. It alsocannot be ignored that, after his oral engagement on dailywages on EGS, was concluded within two years in December1986, he approached the Labour Court under the IndustrialDisputes Act in 1994.15. In view of the above, notwithstanding that the Petitioner hasfailed to make out a case, we are inclined to grant himcompensation at the rate of Rs.1,00,000/- per year of servicethat he has put in, only in view of that fact he has been litigatingall these years.”11.In view of the position of law emanating from the abovementioned judgment of the Division Bench, it can be fairly inferredthat the petitioner is entitled for compensation @ Rs.1,00,000/- peryear of service, which he has undisputedly put in. In the instant case,the petitioner is litigating since several years and was required tocontest two rounds of litigation. Therefore, in my considered opinion,the petitioner is entitled for compensation of approximately @Rs.1,00,000/- per year of his service. 12.On consideration of the entire factual and legal aspectsand submissions advanced by the parties, the petitioner is held entitled
Decision
4181.20wp(8) for award of compensation of Rs.2,50,000/- (Rs. Two Lakh FiftyThousand only) in lieu of reinstatement, continuity of service and backwages. The impugned award dated 26/03/2018 passed by the FirstLabour Court, Ahmednagar stands modified to this extent. 13.The compensation amount of Rs.2,50,000/- shall bedeposited by the respondents before the Labour Court, Ahmednagar,within a period of eight weeks from the date of uploading of this order.The petitioner will be entitled to withdraw the same.14.The writ petition is partly allowed and disposed of. Noorder as to costs.15.Rule is made partly absolute. (PRAFULLA S. KHUBALKAR, J.)sjk