Writ Petition No. 11569 of 2015 · Bombay High Court
Case Details
11569.15wp (1) IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY BENCH AT AURANGABAD 937 WRIT PETITION NO.11569 OF 2015 1. 2. The State of Maharashtra, Through : the Executive Engineer, Mula Pathbandhare Division, Aurangabad Road, Ahmednagar The Collector, Rehabilitation Officer, Ahmednagar ...PETITIONERS VERSUS Kanta Baburao Kardile, Died, thr. L.R.s 1. Hirabai w/o Chandrakant @ Kanta Kardile –wife 2. Pandurang s/o Chandrakant @ Kanta Kardile – son 3. Sharad s/o Chandrakant @ Kanta Kardile – son 4. Anjana w/o Narayan Paighan – Daughter All R/o. at post – Malegaon (Khurd), Tq. Georai, Dist.Beed ...
Legal Reasoning
19/10/2013, on 16/11/2013. It is settled law that there are no two modes of publication of award as is the common misconception that, the appropriate Government publishes the award on the notice board and the Labour Court also publishes the award on it’s notice board. The Labour Court has no jurisdiction under the Industrial Dispute Act, 1947 and the Rules framed thereunder, to publish the award. It is only the appropriate Government that can accept the award, suspend the award or reject the award. Once it accepts the award, it publishes it on the notice board and then dispatches copies to the litigating parties. If the letter received by the petitioners is dated 19/10/2013, the award can be said to be published on the said date by the appropriate Government. 6. In that view of the matter, Misc. Reference (IDA) No.02/2013, filed before the Labour Court on 06/12/2013 was beyond 30 days and the Labour Court has, therefore, become 11569.15wp (4) functus officio. Unfortunately, this was not brought to the notice of the Labour Court in the Misc. Proceedings. The impugned order dated 04/02/2015 is, therefore, nonest as the Labour Court did not have the jurisdiction after 30 days when the award was published by the Deputy Commissioner (Labour), Nashik/appropriate Government, on 19/10/2013. 7. However, as the petitioners have challenged the award by adding a prayer, I have considered the strenuous submissions of the learned Advocates for the respective sides and have gone through the petition paper book with their assistance. 8. The respondent is said to have been working as a daily wager from 01/08/1981 (as a daily rated ‘Watchman’) in the Mula Patbandhare Vibhag, Up-vibhag No.1, Sonai. He was orally removed on 01/10/1984. He had even approached the District Collector, Ahmednagar, requesting for absorption in service and the District Collector informed petitioner No.1 to absorb the respondent in it’s services. However, since that was not done, the respondent raised an industrial dispute and the same was registered before the Labour Court as Reference (I.D.A.) No.4/2010, after 26 years. 11569.15wp (5) 9. The Labour Court relied upon the evidence affidavit Exh. U-6 filed by the respondent. Copy of the letter dated 20/11/1986, issued by the Collector was also produced. The Labour Court noted that, there was reference in the said letter of the District Collector, dated 20/11/1986 that the respondent was working as a daily wager since August 1981 to November 1982 and then upto December 1983. 10. Though there was no evidence before the Labour Court as regards the work performed by the respondent from January 1984 till 01/10/1984. There was material available to indicate that he worked from 01/08/1981 till December 1983, which is a period of around two years and five months. 11. In view of the above, this petition can be partly allowed only to the extent of the Labour Court erroneously concluding that the respondent was working till October 1984. The issue of relief, therefore, crops up. The respondent has worked for two years and five months. The Industrial dispute is raised after 26 years. He is out of employment for the last 39 years. In this situation, the direction of the Labour Court, granting reinstatement in service, with continuity and full backwages, ignoring all these factors, renders the order perverse. 11569.15wp (6) 12. Shri. Barde, the learned Advocate for the respondent/workman relies upon the following cases :- Engineer,
Arguments
Smt. V. S. Chaudhari, A.G.P. for petitioner; Mr P. V. Barde, Advocate for respondents CORAM : RAVINDRA V. GHUGE, J DATE : 8th March, 2022 ORAL JUDGMENT: 1. Rule. Rule made returnable forthwith and heard finally by the consent of the parties. 11569.15wp (2) 2. Leave to add prayer clause (B-1), for challenging the award dated 12/08/2013, delivered in Reference (IDA) No.4/2010. Addition be carried out forthwith. 3. The petitioners were first party in Reference (IDA) No.4/2010 before the Labour Court at Ahmednagar. By the impugned award dated 12/08/2013, the Reference case was answered in the affirmative. Though notice was served on the petitioners, they did not choose to participate in the proceedings and the award was delivered in their absence. Since the award was ex-parte, the petitioners approached the Labour Court preferring Misc. Reference (I.D.A.) No.2/2013, praying for recalling of the said award. Same is rejected vide the impugned order dated 04/02/2015. 4. It is settled law that, after the award is published by the appropriate Government, the Court, which delivered the award can entertain an application for recalling of the award, if an application is filed within 30 days from the date of publication by the appropriate Government. There is no significance of the date on which the award is pasted on the notice board of the Labour Court, to be considered as the date of publication. After 30 days, the Court becomes functus officio as the award becomes 11569.15wp (3) enforceable (read :- Dnyaneshwar Anantrao Kulkarni Vs. The Superintendent Engineer Public Works Division & ors., 2016 (6) ALL MR 35). 5. The award dated 12/08/2013 was published by the Appropriate Government on 19/10/2013 . The copy of the award was received by the petitioners with a covering letter dated