High Court
Legal Reasoning
*1* 903wp114o24 grp(Reportable)IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAYBENCH AT AURANGABADWRIT PETITION NO. 12935 OF 2023BHAGWAT NAGRAJ PATIL,(Deceased through his L.Rs.)BAYJABAI BHAGWAT PATIL,Age : 72 years, Occu: Household,R/o Vikhran, Tq.Erandol,Dist. Jalgaon....PETITIONERVERSUS1. THE STATE OF MAHARASHTRAThrough its: Secretary, Revenue and Forest Department, Mantralaya Mumbai-32.2. The Dy. Conservator of Forest,Jalgaon Forest Division Jalgaon. ...RESPONDENTSWITHWRIT PETITION NO. 12940 OF 2023NANA PANDIT PAWAR,Age : 50 years, Occu: Nil,R/o Lakh Post Khurd, A/P Nandra,Tq.Pachora, Dist. Jalgaon....PETITIONERVERSUS1. THE STATE OF MAHARASHTRAThrough its: Secretary, Revenue and Forest Department, Mantralaya Mumbai-32. *2* 903wp114o24 grp2. The Dy. Conservator of Forest,Jalgaon Forest Division Jalgaon. ...RESPONDENTSWITHWRIT PETITION NO. 12944 OF 2023TUKARAM BHAGA PAWAR,Age : 74 years, Occu: Nil,R/o Padmalaya, Tq.Erandol,Dist. Jalgaon....PETITIONERVERSUS1. THE STATE OF MAHARASHTRAThrough its: Secretary, Revenue and Forest Department, Mantralaya Mumbai-32.2. The Dy. Conservator of Forest,Jalgaon Forest Division Jalgaon. ...RESPONDENTSWITHWRIT PETITION NO. 12950 OF 2023YUVRAJ MATORAJ THAKARE,(Deceased through his L.Rs.)KALABAI YUVRAJ THAKARE (BHIL),Age : 51 years, Occu: Household,R/o Kurhad (Kh.) Tq.Pachora,Dist. Jalgaon....PETITIONERVERSUS1. THE STATE OF MAHARASHTRAThrough its: Secretary, Revenue and Forest Department, *3* 903wp114o24 grpMantralaya Mumbai-32.2. The Dy. Conservator of Forest,Jalgaon Forest Division Jalgaon. ...RESPONDENTSWITHWRIT PETITION NO. 12952 OF 2023PRAKASH MAHADU PATIL,Age : 72 years, Occu: Nil,R/o Asankheda, Tq.Pachora,Dist. Jalgaon....PETITIONERVERSUS1. THE STATE OF MAHARASHTRAThrough its: Secretary, Revenue and Forest Department, Mantralaya Mumbai-32.2. The Dy. Conservator of Forest,Jalgaon Forest Division Jalgaon. ...RESPONDENTS WITHWRIT PETITION NO. 12957 OF 2023PREMRAJ BUDHA PATIL,(deceased through his L.Rs.)BEBABAI PREMRAJ PATIL,Age : 72 years, Occu.: Household,R/o Umarde, Erandol (Rural),Tq.Erandol, Dist. Jalgaon....PETITIONERVERSUS1. THE STATE OF MAHARASHTRAThrough its: Secretary, Revenue and Forest Department,
Legal Reasoning
*4* 903wp114o24 grpMantralaya Mumbai-32.2. The Dy. Conservator of Forest,Jalgaon Forest Division Jalgaon. ...RESPONDENTS WITHWRIT PETITION NO. 114 OF 2024GULAB BUDHAN PATEL,(deceased through his L.Rs.) Taj Bi Shekh Gulab Musalman Age: 73 years, Occu. Nil, R/o. Kurhad Bk. Kurhad Tq. Pachora, Dist. Jalgaon-424202....PETITIONER-VERSUS-1. THE STATE OF MAHARASHTRAThrough its: Secretary, Revenue and Forest Department, Mantralaya Mumbai-32.2. The Dy. Conservator of Forest,Jalgaon Forest Division Jalgaon. ...RESPONDENTS ...Shri Badribishan A. Darak, Advocate for the Petitioners.Shri V.M. Kagne, AGP for Respondent Nos.1 and 2/State.... CORAM : RAVINDRA V. GHUGE & Y. G. KHOBRAGADE, JJ. DATE :- 28th August, 2024 *5* 903wp114o24 grpORAL JUDGMENT ( Per Ravindra V. Ghuge, J. ):- 1.Rule. Rule is made returnable forthwith and heardfinally by the consent of the parties.2.With the assistance of the learned Advocates, wehave gone through the petition paper book and the affidavit inreply filed on behalf of the Deputy Conservator of Forest in eachof these matters.3.Shri Pravin A., Deputy Conservator of Forest,Jalgaon Forest Department, Jalgaon, is present in the Court andhas tendered the original file for our perusal. Though he is theRespondent in these matters, an affidavit in reply on his behalfhas been filed by the Assistant Conservator of Forest, who doesnot explain as to why Respondent No.2 has not filed theaffidavit. It is only stated that he is authorized by the DeputyConservator of Forest to file the affidavit.4.The learned AGP Shri Kagne submits that the Stateis Respondent No.1 and the Deputy Conservator of Forest is *6* 903wp114o24 grpRespondent No. 2. The Assistant Conservator of Forest has filedthe affidavit on behalf of both these parties. Such submissioncannot be countenanced.FACTUAL BACKGROUND OF THESE CASES5.The facts, as they emerge from the record, areundisputed. Each of these Petitioners had approached theIndustrial Court, either at Nashik or at Jalgaon, by filing theirULP Complaints under Section 28(1), read with Items 6, 9 and10 of Schedule IV of the Maharashtra Recognition of TradeUnions and Prevention of Unfair Labour Practices Act, 1971, (forshort, ‘The MRTU and PULP Act’). It is also undisputed thatafter the Industrial Court was established at Jalgaon, some of thematters, which were filed in 1997, were transferred to Jalgaonand were registered in 1999. It is also undisputed that all theseComplaints were partly allowed. It was declared by the IndustrialCourt that the Forest Department had indulged in unfair laborpractices under Item 6 and 9 of Schedule IV of the MRTU andPULP Act. Monetary benefits on the principle of ‘Equal WagesFor Equal Work’ were directed to be paid. *7* 903wp114o24 grp6.The Deputy Conservator of Forest, Jalgaon alongwith the Range Forest Officer, preferred Writ PetitionNo.1368/2005 (The State of Maharashtra and others vs.Ramesh Narayan Patil) and other connected petitions beforethe Single Judge Bench of this Court for challenging thejudgments of the Industrial Court. Keeping in view the law laiddown by the Honourable Supreme Court in Bangalore Waterand Sewerage Board vs. A. Rajappa and others, (1978) 2SCC 213 and the judgment of this Court [Coram : A. S. Oka (asHis Lordship then was) and M. S. Sonak JJ.] in the matter ofChief Conservator of Forest, Pune (T) and another vs.Janabai Sonaba Sarpale, 2019 II CLR 28, it was declared bythe Single Judge, vide judgment dated 14.03.2022, that the SocialForestry Department is an industry. The objection of the ForestDepartment that the Complaints were not maintainable before theIndustrial Court, was negated.7.It is also an admitted position that, neither did theForest Department prove before the Industrial Court that any ofthese Employees were working under the EmploymentGuarantee Scheme (EGS), nor could the Forest Department *8* 903wp114o24 grpestablish before the Single Judge Bench that these workers wereworking under EGS. Paragraph Nos.4, 5 and 6 of the judgmentof the Single Judge dated 14.03.2022 (supra), read thus:-“4. The learned Advocate for the petitioner turns to hissecond limb of submissions that all theserespondents were appointed as temporary Mazdooror Forest Guards and they were working under theEmployment Guarantee Scheme (EGS). He hasvehemently contended that this court hasconsistently taken a view that workers working onEGS cannot seek reinstatement, regularemployment or permanency in service. A specificstand was taken in the written statement that theseworkers are working under EGS.5. I have perused the record available, with theassistance of the learned Advocates for therespective sides. It is obvious that the petitionerhas merely taken a stand that these workers wereworking under EGS. However, no record has beenproduced before the Labour Court. No documentsindicating that these workers were working underthe EGS have been produced.6. It requires no debate that there are special Cells invarious Departments in the State of Maharashtrato deal with EGS employees. A specific officer isentrusted with handling the department of the EGS.All EGS employees are issued with cardsindicating their identity and the fact that they areworking under EGS. Their payments are madethrough the EGS funds. Their attendance and payregister are maintained by the officer handling theEGS Department. None of these documents wereproduced before the labour court and as such thelabour court rightly concluded that, besides a merestatement in written statement, there was noevidence to support/substantiate the claim of thepetitioners that these respondents were working inEGS.”8.It was further held in paragraph Nos. 7 to 10 of the *9* 903wp114o24 grpjudgment dated 14.03.2022 (supra), as under:-“7. Record reveals that these workers have beenworking on daily wages for more than threedecades. Some joined in 1986 and some joined in1988. Most of them have superannuated. Theimpugned judgments have been delivered by theIndustrial Court, Jalgaon in 2003. Since thesematters were admitted, the respondent/originalcomplainants were continued in employment ondaily wages and have been kept away from thebenefits incidental and consequential toregularization, since, this court stayed thedirection of the Industrial Court granting thempermanency.8. In view of the above, I do not find that theimpugned judgment of the Industrial Court couldbe termed as being perverse or erroneous. TheIndustrial Court has rightly followed the law laiddown in the Chief Conservator of Forests andanother Vs Jagannath Maruti Kondhare reportedin (1996) 2 SCC 293 wherein it was directed that ifposts are not available, parity in wages on thebasis of the principle of “Equal pay for equalwages”, has to be followed.9. In view of the above, these petitions are dismissed.Rule is discharged.10. Needless to state that the respondents would beentitled to the benefits of difference in wages aswas directed by the Industrial Court. Consideringthat these respondents have been working for morethan three decades and many of them havesuperannuated, the petitioner-Deputy Conservatorof Forest Jalgaon Forest Division shall forwardthe proposals of these respondents to theappropriate authorities for considering grant ofregularization and a deemed date ofregularization. Such proposals shall be preparedon or before 30-06-2022 and shall be forwarded tothe Principal Secretary Forest Department. Saiddepartment shall consider these proposals asexpeditiously as possible and in any case on orbefore 31-11-2022. The eligible candidates wouldbe granted deemed dates of regularization with all *10* 903wp114o24 grpmonetary benefits incidental and consequentialthereto.”9.It is, thus, apparent that the Petitioners before uswere proved to be working for more than three decades. Theseare concurrent findings of the Industrial Court as well as theSingle Judge Bench of this Court. It is in this backdrop that theSingle Judge Bench directed the Forest Department to forwardthe proposals of these Petitioners for regularization, grant ofdeemed date of regularization and the payment of regular pay-scale/ arrears in the light of the law laid down by the HonourableSupreme Court in Chief Conservator of Forest and another vs.Jagannath Maruti Kondhare, (1996) 2 SCC 293.ISSUES INVOLVED IN THESE CASES10.The controversy in these matters begins at this stage.Shri V.V.Hoshing, Deputy Conservator of Forest, Jalgaon ForestDepartment, (hereinafter ‘DCF’), submitted the proposal dated25.06.2022, to the Conservator of Forest (Territorial), Dhule,wherein, he has practically sat over the judgment of the IndustrialTribunal as well as the judgment of the Single Judge Bench ofthe High Court, by stating that 15 out of 16 proposals do not *11* 903wp114o24 grpdeserve consideration since they never worked for 240 days in ayear and several of them worked under the EmploymentGuarantee Scheme (EGS). Such report of the DCF is not onlyunconscionable, but an attempt to over bear the conclusions ofthe Industrial Court and the High Court. It is for this purpose thatwe have reproduced the conclusions of the Single Judge Benchherein above. 11.Though we are not taking this issue any further, it isapparently an act of overreach by the DCF, which has thetrappings of a willful disobedience of the order of this Court. Onthe basis of this tainted proposal, the Conservator of Forest(Territorial), Dhule has forwarded the proposal to the PrincipalSecretary, Forest and Revenue Department, State of Maharashtra.Thereafter, the DCF informed each of these Petitioners with thecommunication dated 01.05.2023, that regularization cannot begranted to these Petitioners since they do not fulfill therequirements of the Government Resolutions dated 31.01.1996and 16.10.2012.12.The learned AGP submits that in both these *12* 903wp114o24 grpGovernment Resolutions, it is provided that regularization wouldnot be granted if the criteria of completion of 240 days in anyscheme other than EGS, was not fulfilled by any of thesePetitioners. We are of the view that, when there are concurrentfindings that these Petitioners have continuously worked for 3decades. The DCF has forwarded incorrect information to theState. This is the reason why we have drawn the conclusion thatthe Deputy Conservator of Forest, Jalgaon sat on the conclusionsof the Industrial Court and the Single Judge Bench despiteconcurrent findings that these Petitioners were workingcontinuously for almost three decades.13.We are pained to record that out of these Petitionersbefore us, four have passed away and their legal heirs are onrecord. Except one Petitioner, all have retired from service.Reversing the clock for directing the Government to reconsidertheir cases for regularization and grant the deemed dates ofregularization when many of these Petitioners have left thisworld and some of the widows on record are almost 75 years ofage, would be an impracticable and cumbersome exercise.Moreover, if further inappropriate orders are passed by the Forest *13* 903wp114o24 grpDepartment and the desired result, which was expected by thetwo Courts which delivered judgments in these matters, is notachieved, these Petitioners would have to continue with furtherlitigation.CONCLUSIONS14.It is in the above backdrop that the learned Advocatefor the Petitioners, submits on instructions, that in few cases, thisCourt has granted Rs.1,00,000/- (One Lakh) compensation peryear of service put in by a daily wager working in the ForestDepartment. He prays for adequate compensation to thesePetitioners in lieu of regularization, deemed date ofregularization, pension, gratuity and the outstanding difference ofwages payable on the principle of ‘Equal Wages for Equal Work’in the light of the judgment delivered in Jagannath Kondhare(supra), which would be acceptable to these Petitioners.15.We have perused the judgments delivered by theHonourable Supreme Court in similar circumstances in (a)Assistant Engineer, Rajasthan State Agriculture MarketingBoard, Sub-Division, Kota Vs. Mohanlal, 2013 LLR 1009, (b) *14* 903wp114o24 grpAssistant Engineer, Rajasthan Development Corporation andanother Vs. Gitam Singh, (2013) 5 SCC 136, (c) BSNL Vs. ManSingh, (2012) 1 SCC 558, and (d) Jagbir Singh Vs. HaryanaState Agriculture Marketing Board, (2009) 15 SCC 327. Thecompensation granted by the Honourable Supreme Court in thesematters was in between 2009 to 2013. It is more than 10 to 12years that have passed by after the said quantification ofcompensation.16.Considering the above cited reports, we are of theview that it would be impracticable to remit all these mattersback to the Government for reconsideration. As noted above,further litigation cannot be ruled out. All these Petitioners,commenced their litigation journey in 1997 and it is almost 27years that they are in litigating in Courts. Many of them havepassed away. It is high time that we should give a quietus to thislitigation. We have taken into account these factors forconsidering the request of the learned Advocate for thePetitioners to grant lump sum compensation to these Petitioners/legal heirs. *15* 903wp114o24 grp17.The learned AGP submits, on instructions, that theForest Department is in a financial stringency and they have nofunds to pay even difference of wages. The proposal for paymentof wages of difference is also pending.18.Since the difference of pay-scale is also not paid tothese Petitioners and since there are concurrent findings that theyhave worked for three decades, except the Petitioner (NanaPandit Pawar) in Writ Petition No.12940/2023, who has put in 2decades, we conclude that the Forest Department/RespondentNo.1 herein shall pay lump sum compensation of Rs. 10,00,000/-(Ten Lakhs) to these Petitioners (except Nana Pandit Pawar) or totheir legal heirs in case of death of the original Petitioners, in lieuof regularization, gratuity, retiral benefits, the difference inpayment of salary, if not yet paid, etc..19.These Writ Petitions are, therefore, partlyallowed in terms of the above conclusions. The amount ofRs.10,00,000/- (Ten Lakhs) per Petitioner employee or his legalheir in case of death of the original Petitioner, except thePetitioner (Nana Pandit Pawar) in Writ Petition No.12940/2023, *16* 903wp114o24 grpshall be deposited in this Court, on or before 30.09.2024.20.Insofar as Writ Petition No.12940/2023 filed by thePetitioner Nana Pandit Pawar is concerned, he is 50 years of age.The learned Advocate for the Petitioner submits that Nana PanditPawar is also nearing his retirement and presently, is not allottedany work. He was also before the Industrial Court and the SingleJudge Bench of this Court and has succeeded in litigation. It canbe construed that he has worked for than 20 years. He is alsowilling to accept lump sum compensation and give a quietus tothis litigation.21.Hence, in the case Nana Pandit Pawar in WritPetition No.12940/2023, we are granting a lump sumcompensation of Rs.7,50,000/- (Seven Lakhs Fifty Thousands).This amount shall also be deposited in this Court on or before30.09.2024.22.We would not grant extension of time for depositingthe amount. The Petitioners or the legal representative before usare permitted to withdraw the said amounts without conditions, *17* 903wp114o24 grpunder due identification by the learned Advocate for thePetitioners. A copy of their Adhar Card and/or ElectionCommission Voter Identity Card, duly attested by the concernedPetitioner/ legal heir shall be placed on record along with theapplication for withdrawal of the amount.23.Even if the Model Code of Conduct is declared, itwould not be an impediment for implementing this order and fordepositing the amounts in this Court.24.Rule is made partly absolute in terms of the abovedirections. kps (Y. G. KHOBRAGADE, J.) (RAVINDRA V. GHUGE, J.)