High Court
Facts
IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAYBENCH AT AURANGABAD923 WRIT PETITION NO. 2639 OF 2020JANARDHAN DNYANOBA SANGALEVERSUSMANAGING DIRECTOR JAIBHAWANI SAHAKARI SAKHAR KARKHANA LTDSHIVAJINAGAR…..Mr. M. S. Indani, Advocate for the PetitionerMr. P. L. Shahane, Advocate for the Respondent WITHWRIT PETITION NO. 4684 OF 2020JAIBHAVANI SAHAKARI SAKHAR KARKHANA LTD THROUGH ITSMANAGING DIRECTORVERSUSJANARDHAN DNYANOBA SANGALE…..Mr. P. L. Shahane, Advocate for the PetitionerMr. M. S. Indani, Advocate for the Respondent WITHWRIT PETITION NO. 4339 OF 2020JAIBHAVANI SAHAKARI SAKHAR KARKHANA LTD SHIVAJI NAGARTHROUGH ITS MANAGING DIRECTORVERSUSGANPAT RAMCHANDRA KOKAT…..Mr. P. L. Shahane, Advocate for the PetitionerMr. M. S. Indani, Advocate for the Respondent WITHWRIT PETITION NO. 2644 OF 2020GANPAT RAMCHANDRARAO KOKATVERSUSMANAGING DIRECTOR JAIBHAWANI SAHAKARI SAKHAR KARKHANA LTD923 WP 2639.2020.odt1 of 9
Legal Reasoning
Rs. 1,49,117.60 without interest. The interest is denied on the groundthat there is delay in filing of the Applications by the Applicants.6.Learned Counsel for the employees submit that under Section33(c)(2) of the Act it is open for the Labour Court to determine theamount due to the employees though adjudication of the disputed factsis not allowed. It is his submission that the witness of the employer in nouncertain terms has admitted that the employees are entitled to receivesum of Rs.2,50,547.10 and Rs. 2,69,963/- respectively. According tothem when there is no dispute that the legal dues were payable in theyear 2012 but the same has not been paid, the Labour Court hascommitted error in not allowing the said entire amount to the employeesand denying interest. To support his submission, reliance is placed on thejudgment of the Co-ordinate Bench of this Court in case of GatewellBoard And Paper Pvt. Ltd., Vs. Fakruddin S. Lokhandwala and another,2007(1), Mh.L.J., 246.7.Learned Counsel for the Employer on the other handvehemently argued that the Application made before the Labour Court isvague and that no specific prayer has been made by the employees forreceiving particular amount. It is his submission that unless specificprayer is made, it is not open for the Court to grant relief. He furtherargued that the scope of Section 33(c)(2) of the Act is extremely limited923 WP 2639.2020.odt4 of 9 and that the adjudication is not permissible. It is his further submissionthat since respondent claimed gratuity, said claim is not maintainableunder Section 33(c)(2) of the Act as there is alternate remedy providedunder the Payment of Gratuity Act. To claim the amount of gratuity. Tosupport of his submission he placed reliance on the judgment of Hon’bleSupreme Court in case of State of Punjab Vs. Labour Court Jullunder andOrs., MANU/SC/0375/1979. Similarly, reliance is placed on the judgmentof this Court in case of Jaibhavani Sahakari Sakhar Karkhana Ltd., Vs.Baban Achyutrao Kulkarni in Writ Petition No. 3696 pf 2016, dated17/10/2016 in respect of the same employer. It is sought to be arguedthat since issue of closure is involved the same could not have beendecided by the Court under Section 33(c)(2) of the Act. He further placedreliance on the case of Press Council of India Vs. Union of India andAnother, (2012) 12 SCC 329. He relied on the judgment of the Hon’bleSupreme Court in case of Manik Keshav Jagdale Vs. Parner TalukaSahakari Sakhar Karkhana and Anr 2019 CLR 323.8.The law on the point of the jurisdiction of the Labour Courtunder Section 33(c)(2) of the Act is settled to say that the adjudicationof any dispute is not permissible to be entertained by the Labour Court.However, at the same time there is no impediment for the Labour Courtto compute the entitlement of the employees in exercise of the said923 WP 2639.2020.odt5 of 9 jurisdiction. Keeping in mind the said position of law it would be relevantto take into consideration the pleadings of the parties before the LabourCourt.9.The Applications clearly indicate that the they specificallyclaimed unpaid wages so also the retiral dues. In the written statement,there is specific admission on the part of employer that the person isretired in the year 2012 and 2014 respectively and their final dues arecredited in individual ledger accounts maintained by Karkhana. In thebackdrop of these pleadings and admission by Employer, the employeesled oral evidence and supported their claim. Mr. Kashinath Kshirsagar,Managing Director, in his evidence on oath, in no uncertain terms hadadmitted that the employees are entitled for the retiral benefits. He notonly states about the entitlement of the employees but also admits thatthe amounts entitled to be received by them i.e. Rs. 2,50,547.10 andRs. 2,69,963.00 respectively. There is further admission on his part thatthe amounts are due from 2012 and 2014 respectively.10.In the light of the pleadings and evidence on record no issuearose for adjudication by the Labour Court. What was required to bedone was only computation of amounts. The said exercise is also notrequired to be carried out by the Labour Court in view of the candidadmission of the witness of the Employer about exact amounts due.923 WP 2639.2020.odt6 of 9 Thus nothing had remained for the Labour Court to decide in theApplication. The Labour Court there ought to have pass an order onadmission for the respondent employer.11.Now coming to the issue sought to be raised by the learnedCounsel for the Employer about the maintainability of the Applications asaccording to him the amount claimed also includes the amount payabletowards gratuity. There cannot be any dispute made with regard to thepreposition laid down by the Hon’ble Supreme Court in case State ofPunjab Vs. Labour Court Jullunder and Ors. (supra) that in case wherethere is a determination of the amount of gratuity or the entitlement ofany person to receive the same, in that case it is only the authorityunder the Payment of Gratuity Act would have jurisdiction to determinethese questions. However, in the instant case the question as to thedetermination as well as entitlement was never in dispute. In fact bycrediting the amount into the account of the employee, the employeradmits of the entitlement of the employees so also the determination ofthe amount. Thus nothing had remained for determination ascontemplated by the Payment of Gratuity Act. The judgments cited supratherefore would have no application to the present case. This Courttherefore finds no substance in the arguments advanced by learnedCounsel for the Employer in that regard.923 WP 2639.2020.odt7 of 9 12.It is shocks conscience of the Court that after filing of thewritten statement admitting the entitlement of the retiral dues of theemployees in spite of paying it, the Employer has made all efforts for allthese years i.e. since 2012 to 2014 respectively, to deny the rights of theemployees and in fact utilized the said amount without legal or moraljustification. In such circumstances it would be absolutely necessary thatthe interest at the rate of 12% per annum from the date of Applicationtill realization must be directed to be paid by the Employer to theemployees.13.In the above circumstances, it was absolutely necessary forthe Labour Court to allow the Application in toto. The orders impugnedtherefore deserve modification. The Petitions filed by the Employer standdismissed. Petitions filed by employees stand allowed in followingterms:-(i)Application I.D.A. Nos. 17/2017 and 18/2017 stand allowed.(ii)Applicant in Application I.D.A. No. 17/2017 is held to beentitled to receive Rs. 2,69,963/- along with interest at the rate of12% per annum from the date of Application till realization.(iii)Applicant in Application I.D.A. No. 18/2017 is held to beentitled to receive Rs.2,50,547.10 along with interest at the rate of923 WP 2639.2020.odt8 of 9 12% per annum from the date of Application till realization.(iv)The Employer is directed to pay the aforestated amounts withinterest at the earliest and in any case within a period of threemonths from today. (R. M. JOSHI, J.)ssp923 WP 2639.2020.odt9 of 9
Arguments
SHIVAJINAGAR…..Mr. M. S. Indani, Advocate for the PetitionerMr. P. L. Shahane, Advocate for the Respondent CORAM: R. M. JOSHI, J.DATE: 30th JULY, 2025PER COURT :-1.By consent of both sides, heard finally at the stage ofadmission and since common question of facts and law involved therein,all Petitions are heard together and decided by this common order.2.Writ Petition No. 2639/2020 and 2466/2020 are filed by twoemployees i.e. Janardan Dnynoba Sangle and Ganpat RamchandraraoKokat seeking the modification of order dated 09/04/2019 passed by theLabour Court in I.D.A. No. 17/2017 and 18/2017 under Section 33(c)(2)of the Industrial Disputes Act (for short ‘the Act’). Whereas the WritPetition Nos. 4684/2020 and 4339/2020 are filed by the Employer forsetting aside the order passed by the Labour Court granting the salaryfor the period of 16 months as claimed by the employees.3.Parties are referred to as ‘employees and Employer’ for thesake of convenience.4.Applications came to be filed under the provisions of Section33(c)(2) of the Act seeking the relief of direction of payment of the923 WP 2639.2020.odt2 of 9 amount credited into the account of the employees with interest at therate of 18% per annum. Similarly, prayer is made with regard to thepayment of the wages for the period from July, 2004 to October, 2005with interest. The Employer filed written statements in both proceedingscontending that the Application is not filed within the period of limitationand the same is filed without any justification after a period of five years.It is also claimed that the said Application is not maintainable. It ishowever, specifically admitted in the written statements that theApplicant Janardhan was an employee/Wireman and Applicant Ganpatwas an employee/Electrician and that they retired from the service on03/02/2014 and 15/03/2012 respectively. It is further categoricallyadmitted that their financial dues are credited in their individual ledgeraccount mentioned by the Karkhana. The written statement filed by theemployer therefore clearly indicates that there is no dispute made by theEmployer with regard to the entitlement of employees in respect of theamount deposited in the individual ledger accounts of the employees.5.With this admitted fact, evidence was led before the LabourCourt. Employees examined themselves. Whereas, on behalf of theEmployer, Mr. Kashinath Kshirsagar, Managing Director of the Jay BhavaniSahakari Sakhar Karkhana Ltd., was examined. The learned Labour Courtpartly allowed the Application and directed payment of a sum of923 WP 2639.2020.odt3 of 9