High Court · 2025

WP-9095-2022.odtIN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAYBENCH AT AURANGABADWRIT PETITION NO. 9095 OF 20221. The Sarpanch,Grampanchayat Punewadi,Tq – Parner, Dist – Ahmednagar,Balasaheb s/o Kondiram Repale,Age – 30 years, Occu. Business,R/o Punewadi Tq – Parner,Dist - Ahmednagar.2.The GramSevak,Grampanchayat Punewadi,Tq – Parner, Dist - Ahmednagar….Petitioners [Org. First Party]VERSUSSantosh s/o Namdev Borude,Age – 28 yrs Occu. Agri.,R/o Punewadi Tq. Parner,R/o Punewadi Tq. Parner,Dist. Ahmednagar …..Respondent [Org. Second Party]________________________________________________________________Appearance :Mr. T. S. Kotkar h/f Mr. S. D. Kotkar, Advocate of thePetitionersMr. S. D. Jaybhar, Advocate for the Respondent - Sole________________________________________________________________CORAM:NEERAJ P. DHOTE, J.RESERVED ON:18th November, 2025PRONOUNCED ON:09th December, 2025FINAL ORDER : 1.The Gram Panchayat, Punewadi, Taluka Parner,District Ahmednagar, has filed this Writ Petition under Article227 of the Constitution of India against the order dated1 WP-9095-2022.odt09/02/2021, passed by the learned Presiding Officer, LabourCourt, Ahmednagar, in Reference (IDA) No.05/2018, directingthe Petitioners to reinstate the Respondent in the servicesfrom 02/06/2016.2.The brief facts giving rise to the present Petition areas follows :-[I]The Respondent was appointed as the Clerk by thePetitioners – Gram Panchayat, pursuant to the Resolution No.9in its monthly meeting dated 25/02/2015. The Respondentwas on sick leave from 16/05/2016 to 01/06/2016, for which,he had submitted the leave Application on 16/05/2016.Thereafter, he was terminated by the oral order of theSarpanch / Gram Panchayat with effect from 02/06/2016. Hesubmitted the representation dated 22/06/2016 to the BlockDevelopment Officer, Panchayat Samiti, Parner, DistrictAhmednagar (for short ‘the BDO’). When he had gone todemand his salary, he was not allowed to enter the GramPanchayat, so he submitted the complaint to the BDO. Thestaffing pattern of the Petitioners – Gram Panchayat wassanctioned from April – 2014 and the salary grants werereceived from the Government, and therefore, there was nofinancial burden on the Petitioners – Gram Panchayat. The2 WP-9095-2022.odtRespondent approached the Gram Panchayat Employee Union,through which, he gave notice dated 30/08/2016 underSection 2-A of the Industrial Disputes Act, 1947 (hereinafterreferred to as ‘the I.D. Act’). However, the Petitioners – GramPanchayat did not allow him to join the duty and was not givensalary from November – 2015. Thereafter, the Respondentfiled the Mediation Letter to the Labour Officer and Mediator,Office of the Assistant Labour Commissioner, Ahmednagar, fordoing the needful. [II]The dispute was referred to the Labour Court. TheRespondent filed his statement of claim narrating the entirefactual aspects. The Petitioners – Gram Panchayat videcommunication dated 16/04/2018 addressed to the LabourCourt, submitted their contention that, the Respondent wasnot attending the duty regularly and the public work wasadversely affected. The Respondent’s behavior was not properand he used to avoid the duty. The Resolution in the meetingdated 25/02/2015 was passed without the Coram of themeeting. The Respondent used to not report to duty after theleave period. The Petitioners – Gram Panchayat had no optionbut to engage the services of another person. Afterrecruitment of the another person, the work of Petitioners –3 WP-9095-2022.odtGram Panchayat was going on properly. The said Employeewas appointed on permanent basis by passing the Resolutionin the meeting. 3.It is submitted by the learned Advocate for thePetitioners – Gram Panchayat that, the Labour Court had nojurisdiction to entertain the Reference, as the Respondent wasnot the workman under the definition of the I. D. Act. Theimpugned order suffers from jurisdictional error. TheRespondent was the temporary Employee. The Respondent didnot report on the duty and despite, the Petitioners – GramPanchayat contacted him, he did not respond, and therefore,the Petitioners – Gram Panchayat had no option but to engagethe services of the another person. There was remedy for theRespondent under the provisions of the Bombay VillagePanchayats Act, 1958 by way of Appeal. The Respondent failedto establish before the learned Labour Court that, he workedfor 240 days. The Appeal be allowed. In support of hissubmissions, he cited the following Judgments :(i)Gram Panchayat, Sawargaon Vs. JamnaprasadRaghunath Prasad; (1967) SCC Online Bom.61;(ii)Gram Panchayat, Katli Vs. Presiding Officer,First Labour Court, Nagpur ; 1989 SCC OnlineBom. 131;4 WP-9095-2022.odt(iii)Village Panchayat of Collem Vs. Industrial Tribunal, Government of Goa; 1994 SCC Online Bom. 662 ;(iv) Harshad Chiman Lal Modi Vs. DLF Universal Ltd. and Another ; (2005) 7 SCC 791 ; 4.It is submitted by the learned Advocate for theRespondent that, the Petitioners – Gram Panchayat did notraise the issue of maintainability of the dispute before thelearned Labour Court. No evidence was laid by the Petitioners– Gram Panchayat in the IDA proceedings. No inquiry washeld before orally terminating the services of the Respondent.The learned Labour Court has rightly passed the impugnedorder and no interference was called for in this Writ Petition.In support of his contentions, he cited the followingJudgments :(i)The order dated 25/11/2025 of this Courtpassed in Writ Petition No.11294/2022 (GokulOnkar Patil Vs. TheState of Maharashtrathrough Secretary and Others ;(ii)The order dated 04/07/2007 of this Courtpassed in Writ Petition No.5235/2007 (TheSarpanch Gram Panchayat, Pophalavane Vs.Jaisingh Bhikaji Shinde ;(iii)The order dated 24/03/2020 of the MadrasHigh Court passed in W. P. (MD)No.12309/2016 (The Executive Officer,Kottaram Town Panchayat Vs. P. Murugesanand Anr.);5 WP-9095-2022.odt(iv)The order dated 26/11/2010 by the other HighCourt (not seen from the copy), in WritPetition No.18051/2001 (Kannam Venkati Vs.The District Panchayat Officer (DPO),Karimnagar and three others ;5.In Gram Panchayat, Sawargaon (Supra), theRespondent therein was employed as a Pound-keeper by theJanpad Sabha, which was a local authority constituted underthe Central Provinces and Berar Local Government Act, 1948,in the old State of Madhya Pradesh. Under the said Act, theestablishment and maintenance of cattle-pounds was one ofthe compulsory functions to be performed by the JanpadSabha. The Bombay Village Panchayats Act, 1958 came intoforce and all the Panchayats constituted under the CentralProvinces and Berar Panchayats Act were deemed to havebeen constituted Panchayats under the new Bombay Act. Theissue was in respect of the service of the cattle-pound keeper.The question for consideration was whether the activitycarried on by the Village Panchayat can be called as Industrywithin the meaning of the C.P. and Berar Industrial DisputesSettlement Act, 1947. Considering the aspects of the matter,it was held that, the activity carried on by the VillagePanchayat did not satisfy the tests, and therefore, it was notpossible to hold that, the Gram Panchayat was employed in anactivity, which had resemblance to an "industry".6.In Gram Panchayat, Katil (Supra), considering thedecision in Bangalore Water Supply and Sewerage Board Vs.A. Rajappa and Ors.; AIR 1978 SC 969, it was held that, the6 WP-9095-2022.odtRespondent No.2 therein was a marginal employee hired toattend certain minimal matters that would not destroy the non-employer character of the organization.7.In Village Panchayat of Collem (Supra), thechallenge was to the Award passed by the Industrial Tribunal.The matter was remanded to the Tribunal to decide theReference afresh on all the three points, which were raised bythe Government.8.In Harshad Chiman Lal Modi (Supra), the issue inrespect of jurisdiction of a Court was considered. It isobserved that, the jurisdiction of a Court may be classified intoseveral categories, the important categories were (i)Territorial or local jurisdiction, (ii) Pecuniary jurisdiction, and(iii) Jurisdiction over the subject matter. So far as territorialand pecuniary jurisdictions are concerned, objection to suchjurisdiction has to be taken at the earliest possible opportunityand in any case at or before settlement of issues. The law iswell settled on the point that, if such objection is not taken atthe earliest, it cannot be allowed to be taken at a subsequentstage. The jurisdiction as to the subject matter, however, istotally distinct and stands on a different footing. Where aCourt has no jurisdiction over the subject matter of the suit byreason of any limitation imposed by statute, charter orcommission, it cannot take up the cause or matter. An orderpassed by a Court having no jurisdiction is nullity.7 WP-9095-2022.odt9.In Gokul Onkar Patil (Supra), the Petitioner thereinwas a Peon in the Gram Panchayat and he filed the WritPetition for quantifying the arrears of his salary, livingallowances and other benefits by observing that, the Petitionerwas a “workman” under Section 2(s) and the Gram Panchayatis an “industry” under Section 2(j) of the Industrial DisputesAct, 1947 and he was having efficacious statutory remedy ofapproaching the Industrial Court and the Writ Petition wasdisposed of with liberty to the Petitioner to avail the statutoryremedy.10.In Sarpanch Gram Panchayat, Pophalavane (Supra),no issue as to whether the Respondent was employed in anindustry or not was raised by the Petitioner – Gram Panchayattherein at any point of time. The reference was not challengednor the instructions were given to the Advocate for filingwritten statement. It is observed that, the issue as to whetherthe Petitioner is an industry or not need not be framed if theemployer does not join issue in this regard with the workman,and therefore findings of the Labour Court were not interfered.11.In Executive Officer, Kottaram (Supra), the GramPanchayat had challenged the jurisdiction of the Labour Courtto hold the case, as the Petitioner, who was Scavenger in thePanchayat, will come under the purview of Industry or not.Considering the Judgment in Kannam Venkati Vs. DistrictPanchayat Officer (DPO), Karimnagar and Others; 2010Supreme (AP) 1176, it is observed that, the said Judgment and8 WP-9095-2022.odtthe Judgment in Corporation of the City of Nagpur Vs. itsemployees and others; 1960 AIR (SC) 675 were squarelyapplicable to the facts of that case and the Petition wasdismissed, as no case was made out to interfere in the orderpassed by the Labour Court.12.In Kannam Venkati (Supra), it is observed that, theGram Panchayat also collects tax and its functions includesmaintaining the roads, drains, markets, street lights, watersupply, etc. and considering the nature of functions that haveto be rendered by the Gram Panchayat, it was treated as anindustry.13.Coming to the case at hand, it is clear from theimpugned Award that, the Petitioners – Gram Panchayatsubmitted their Say below Exhibit – C-1 and raised theircontentions. If the copy of communication by the Petitioners –Gram Panchayat, addressed to the In-charge Security, LabourCourt, Ahmednagar, is the same reply filed before the LabourCourt, as it appears so, one of the contentions was in respectof the Resolution dated 25/02/2025, by which the Respondentwas appointed as the Gram Panchayat employee. It wascontended that, the meeting was adjourned for want of Coramand despite that, the Resolution was passed without therebeing Coram of the meeting. Another contention raised was9 WP-9095-2022.odtthat, due to non-cooperation / conduct of the Respondent, thePetitioners – Gram Panchayat had to appoint another personon permanent basis. The impugned order do not show that,the said contentions were considered. Though, as seen fromthe impugned Award, the Petitioners – Gram Panchayat did notcross-examine the Respondent before the Labour Court, thesaid two issues / contentions raised by the Petitioners – GramPanchayat in their Say / Written Statement ought to have beenconsidered.14.The copy of letter sent by the Respondent to theLabour Officer-cum-Mediator, dated 17/09/2016 mentionsthat, the Petitioner – Gram Panchayat was receiving grantsfrom the Government from April – 2014 for the posts in theapproved staffing pattern, and therefore, no financial liabilitywas shouldered by the Gram Panchayat. When this is theposition and when the Petitioner – Gram Panchayat has alreadyappointed one another person in place of the Respondent, thesame needs consideration by the learned Labour Court. Trueit is that, the industrial dispute is to be dealt with as per theprovisions of the Industrial Dispute Act, 1947; the aboveaspects referred in Paragraph No.13 above, as well as thosementioned in this Para, are relevant. Thus, the matter needs10 WP-9095-2022.odtre-consideration by the learned Labour Court after givingopportunity to all the sides, in accordance with law, andtherefore, the matter is required to be remanded to thelearned Labour Court. Hence, the following order :ORDER [I]Writ Petition is partly allowed.[II]The impugned order / award dated 09/02/2021 in Ref. (IDA) No.05/2018, passed by the learned Labour Court, Ahmednagar, is quashed andset aside. [III]The matter is remanded to the learned Labour Court,Ahmednagar for re-consideration and decision aftergiving opportunity to all the sides, in accordance with law. [IV]The parties shall appear before the learned Labour Court, Ahmednagar on 22 nd December, 2025 .[V]Writ Petition stands disposed off accordingly. [NEERAJ P. DHOTE, J.]Sameer/December-202511