Mr. G. S. Shembole, Advocate for PetitionerMr. P. K. Joshi and Mr v. S. Patil, Advocates for
Legal Reasoning
(1) wp-2813-2025.odtIN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY BENCH AT AURANGABADWRIT PETITION NO.2813 OF 2025THE DIRECTOR GENERAL WATER AND LANDMANAGEMENT INSTITUTE WALMIVERUSSK. SALEEMODDIN SK. HAMIMODDIN AND OTHERS …Mr. G. S. Shembole, Advocate for PetitionerMr. P. K. Joshi and Mr. V. S. Patil, Advocates for Respondents.… CORAM : S. G. CHAPALGAONKAR, J. DATED : 30th JUNE, 2025.ORDER:- 1.The petitioner impugns judgment and order dated 10.10.2024passed by learned Labour Court, Aurangabad in Application IDANo.29/2020 (CNR No.MHLC20000470-2020), by which petitioner isdirected to pay amount of Rs.97000/- to each of respondents withinterest @ 7% per annum w.e.f. 25.05.2012 till its realization.2.Brief facts giving rise to present Writ Petition are as under:The respondents/original applicants filed application underSection 33(c)(2) of Industrial Disputes Act, 1947. They weretemporary employees working as labours with petitioner. Theycontinuously worked from 1985 onwards without official holidays.The respondents/employees demanded for permanency andconsequential benefits. The petitioner accepted demands ofemployees and made them permanent by orders dated 07.02.1996,06.11.1996 and 30.09.1997. Although benefits of permanency were
Decision
(2) wp-2813-2025.odtextended, they were not given monetary compensation in lieu ofholidays. Therefore, respondents individually or through Unionrepresented for release of compensation/holidays’ salary, as theydischarged their duties without single break. It was theircontention that they worked even on National holidays. InCircular dated 19.11.2009, Management accepted thatrespondents/workmen were made to work on holidays and theyhave valid claims for compensation. The petitioner/Management inits communication dated 25.05.2012 represented State ofMaharashtra that workmen have genuine and legitimate claim andrequested Government to make provision of Rs.1,50,00,000/-towards monetary compensation as against holidays. Each of therespondent was held entitled for compensation of Rs.97000/- asagainst arrears of wages towards holidays. In all 155 unskilledworkers, who have worked on daily wages were held entitled forfinancial compensation.3.Since compensation was not released, respondents/workmenfiled Writ Petition No.11889/2015 before this Court seeking Writ ofMandamus to release compensation amount. However, ontechnical objection as to the maintainability of writ petition, inview of alternate remedy before Labour Court under Section 33(c)(2) of Industrial Disputes Act, 1947, writ petition was disposed of (3) wp-2813-2025.odtwith liberty in favour of workmen to approach Labour Court fortheir demands.4.Out of 155 workmen, only 37 employees approached LabourCourt and their applications were allowed. Thepetitioner/Management challenged aforesaid orders of LabourCourt in Writ Petition No.2827/2019 alongwith companion matters,which were dismissed with further directions to petitioner that toavoid multiplicity of litigation, all similarly situated employeesshall be extended benefits of compensation in lieu of holidays andamount of Rs.97000/- to each of employees shall be paid. However,aforesaid order passed in Writ Petitions was again subjected toreview at the behest of petitioner/Management. The ReviewPetition was allowed, thereby restricting conferment of benefit onlyto 37 employees in whose favour orders were passed by LabourCourt. This court further observed that 118 similarly situatedemployees shall be entitled to file individual or joint applicationunder Section 33(c)(2) of the Industrial Disputes Act before LabourCourt on or before 21.12.2020. Accordingly, respondents/workmenfiled a joint application bearing IDA No.29/2020 before LabourCourt under Section 33(c)(2) of Industrial Disputes Act seekingrelease of benefits.5.The petitioner/Management opposed application by filingwritten statement mainly on the ground of delay and laches. (4) wp-2813-2025.odtHowever, Industrial Court looking to the previous orders passed byHigh Court in respect of 37 employees, directedpetitioner/Management to release amount of Rs.97000/- to each ofapplicants alongwith interest @ 7% per annum w.e.f. 25.05.2012.Being aggrieved and dissatisfied by aforesaid order present WritPetition has been filed.6.Mr. Shembole, learned Advocate appearing for petitionersubmits that petitioner-Water and Land Management Institute(WALMI) is a society and cannot be termed as industry withinmeaning of Industrial Disputes Act, 1947. He would furthersubmit that respondents filed applications before Labour Courtafter 20 years of cause of action. As such those are liable to berejected on the ground of delay and laches. Mr. Shembole wouldfurther submit that 9 employees whose claims were dismissed indefault are also granted benefit under impugned order withoutrestoration of applications. According to Mr. Shembole, interest oncompensation amount is granted w.e.f. 25.05.2012, althoughapplication was filed before Labour Court in the year 2020. On thiscount, he seeks either quashing and setting aside of the impugnedorder or appropriate modification.7.Per contra, Mr. P. K. Joshi, learned Advocate appearing forrespondents/workmen submits that challenge to impugned order ismisplaced. The petitioner has already satisfied award passed in (5) wp-2813-2025.odtfavour of 37 workmen, who are similarly situated like respondents.He would point out that this Court confirmed orders ofcompensation passed in favour of 37 workmen and also approvedrights of respondents to receive compensation of Rs.97000/- in lieuof holidays. However, for technical reasons, they were relegated toLabour Court, who ultimately ordered release of compensationamount in favour of respondents/workmen. Mr. Joshi wouldsubmit that all contentions as raised on behalf ofpetitioner/Management are already set at rest by orders of thisCourt in previous round of litigation. He would point out thatpetitioner has released benefits in favour of 37 workmen afterorder passed by this Court in Writ Petition No.2827/2019. Mr.Joshi would submit that even petitioner/Management hasdeposited Rs.1,50,00,000/-. The said amount is laying with LabourCourt. The respondents/workmen are, therefore, entitled to receivesaid amount.8.Mr. Joshi would further submit that provision of Section33(c)(2) of Industrial Disputes Act does not prescribe period oflimitation for raising claim. However, he fairly concedes thatrespondents may be entitled to receive interest on compensationamount from the date of application. Mr. Joshi would furtherconcede that 9 employees whose claims were dismissed in default (6) wp-2813-2025.odtmay have their own remedy and he has no objection, if order ismodified to the extent of those employees.9.Having considered submissions advanced, it can be observedthat in all 155 workmen, who were granted permanency in lieu ofpolicy decision of petitioner/Management were not paidwages/compensation for the work on holidays. The Circular dated19.11.2009 issued by petitioner/Management accepts that all thoseworkmen have rendered services on holidays, including Nationalholidays and they were not paid monetary benefits for the same.The petitioner/Management has represented same fact in itscommunication dated 25.05.2012 addressed to State ofMaharashtra. Eventually, demand of Rs.1,50,00,000/- was raisedso as to compensate workmen for services rendered by them onholidays. The amount of compensation is quantified to Rs.97000/-for each of unskilled workmen, who rendered services on dailywages.10.It is not in dispute that 37 workmen had approached LabourCourt under Section 33(c)(2) of Industrial Disputes Act. TheLabour Court had allowed their application and directedpetitioner/Management to release compensation. The aforesaidorder was unsuccessfully challenged by petitioner/Management inWrit Petition No.2827/2019. Pertinently, while dismissing saidWrit Petition this Court had directed petitioner/Management to (7) wp-2813-2025.odtrelease benefit to all similarly situated workmen. Undisputedly,respondents are similarly situated and held entitled forcompensation. However, on objection of petitioner/Management,order was reviewed by this Court and relief as granted by LabourCourt was restricted to 37 workmen, who had exhausted remedyunder Section 33(c)(2) of Industrial Disputes Act before LabourCourt.11.Pertinently, respondents/workmen were party in WritPetition No.11889/2015, which was disposed with liberty to exhaustremedy under Section 33(c)(2) of Industrial Disputes Act.However, immediately thereof respondents had not taken steps,but later on approached Labour Court by filing joint reference andsame has been allowed by Labour Court. Apparently, LabourCourt granted relief to respondents keeping in mind principles ofparity.12.So far as objection as to limitation is concerned, Section 33(c)(2) of Industrial Disputes Act does not provide for any limitation.Further respondents/workmen had initially exhausted remedy offiling Writ Petition in the year 2015 and which was disposed ofwith liberty to approach Labour Court. It is not case whererespondents have slept over their rights. Pertinently, whiledisposing of Writ Petition No. 2827/2019 filed by thepetitioner/Management, the rights of the respondents/workmen (8) wp-2813-2025.odtwere endorsed, until part of the order was recalled in review at thebehest of the petitioner/Management. In order on ReviewApplication, this Court clarified that respondents/workmen shall beat liberty to approach Labour Court and exhaust appropriateremedy under Section 33(c)(2) of Industrial Disputes Act. Thecomplaints were filed before Labour Court in aforesaid backgroundand those have been allowed.13.It is not disputed before this Court that benefit ofcompensation in lieu of holidays has been already extended to 37workmen whose claims were allowed by Labour Court andconfirmed by this Court. The respondents/workmen beingsimilarly situated, there is no reason to decline same relief to them,particularly, when petitioner/Management has acted upon orderspertaining to similarly situated 37 workmen. The petitioner isestopped from raising contention that similarly situated 118workmen left behind, are not entitled for such benefit.14.So far as interest on compensation is concerned, learnedAdvocate appearing for petitioner is right in contending thatinterest would be payable from the date of application. Theaforesaid legal position is fairly conceded by Mr. Joshi, learnedAdvocate appearing for respondents/workmen. Even this Courtfinds substance in contentions of learned Advocate appearing forpetitioner/Management that 9 workmen whose claims were (9) wp-2813-2025.odtdismissed in default before Labour Court cannot be granted benefitin absence of restoration of their applications.15.Hence, Writ Petition deserves to be partly allowed andimpugned order deserves to be modified to the extent of period ofinterest on amount of compensation payable torespondents/workmen and relief granted in favour of 9 workmen,who suffered dismissal of application before Labour Court for wantof prosecution. Hence, following order is passed:ORDERa.Writ Petition is partly allowed.b.The impugned order dated 10.10.2024 passed by PresidingOfficer and Judge, Labour Court at Aurangabad is modified asunder:(i)The opponent (present petitioner) is hereby directed topay amount of Rs.97000/- to respondents (excluding 9workmen whose claims were dismissed in default) alongwithinterest @ 7% per annum from the date of filing ofapplication till its realization.(ii)No orders as to costs.(S. G. CHAPALGAONKAR)JUDGEDevendra/July-2025