✦ High Court of India

Dilip Manchakrao Kadam v. Bajaj Auto Limited, through its Authorized Signatory

Case Details

1 wp_5814.22.odt IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY BENCH AT AURANGABAD WRIT PETITION NO. 5814 OF 2022 Dilip Manchakrao Kadam .. Petitioner Versus Bajaj Auto Limited, through its Authorized Signatory .. Respondent AND WRIT PETITION NO. 5812 OF 2022 Sopan Raghunath Baviskar .. Petitioner Versus Bajaj Auto Limited, through its Authorized Signatory .. Respondent AND WRIT PETITION NO. 3841 OF 2022 Sanjay Manchakrao Kadam .. Petitioner Versus Bajaj Auto Limited, through its Authorized Signatory .. Respondent AND WRIT PETITION NO. 5319 OF 2022 Shivaji Vinayakrao Ghodke .. Petitioner Versus Bajaj Auto Limited, through its Authorized Signatory .. Respondent AND WRIT PETITION NO. 5318 OF 2022 Vilas Wamanrao Lahane .. Petitioner Versus Bajaj Auto Limited, through its Authorized Signatory .. Respondent AND WRIT PETITION NO. 3628 OF 2022 2 wp_5814.22.odt Datta Shankar Gaikwad .. Petitioner Versus Bajaj Auto Limited, through its Authorized Signatory .. Respondent AND WRIT PETITION NO. 6874 OF 2022 Santosh Vasantrao Ramdasi .. Petitioner Versus Bajaj Auto Limited, through its Authorized Signatory .. Respondent AND WRIT PETITION NO. 3835 OF 2022 Lahu Sakharam Jogdand .. Petitioner Versus Bajaj Auto Limited, through its Authorized Signatory .. Respondent AND WRIT PETITION NO. 5793 OF 2022 Bhagwan Murlidhar Sawant .. Petitioner Versus Bajaj Auto Limited, through its Authorized Signatory .. Respondent AND WRIT PETITION NO. 5791 OF 2022 Prabhakar Vitthal Akhade .. Petitioner Versus Bajaj Auto Limited, through its Authorized Signatory .. Respondent AND WRIT PETITION NO. 5813 OF 2022 Madhav Sonaji Wabale .. Petitioner Versus Bajaj Auto Limited, through 3 wp_5814.22.odt its Authorized Signatory .. Respondent AND WRIT PETITION NO. 5788 OF 2022 Kisan Ramsingh Rathod .. Petitioner Versus Bajaj Auto Limited, through its Authorized Signatory .. Respondent AND WRIT PETITION NO. 5789 OF 2022 Gajanan Manohar Kharche .. Petitioner Versus Bajaj Auto Limited, through its Authorized Signatory .. Respondent AND WRIT PETITION NO. 5790 OF 2022 Ganesh Radhakishan Waghmare .. Petitioner Versus Bajaj Auto Limited, through its Authorized Signatory .. Respondent AND WRIT PETITION NO. 5792 OF 2022 Santosh Bharat Narayankar .. Petitioner Versus Bajaj Auto Limited, through its Authorized Signatory .. Respondent AND WRIT PETITION NO. 5811 OF 2022 Sanjeev Anandrao More .. Petitioner Versus Bajaj Auto Limited, through its Authorized Signatory .. Respondent AND WRIT PETITION NO. 11571 OF 2022 4 wp_5814.22.odt Santosh Rambhau Gaikwad .. Petitioner Versus Bajaj Auto Limited, through its Authorized Signatory .. Respondent AND WRIT PETITION NO. 3597 OF 2022 Balasaheb Sonba Choudhari .. Petitioner Versus Bajaj Auto Limited, through its Authorized Signatory .. Respondent AND WRIT PETITION NO. 3443 OF 2022 Pandurang Sonba Choudhari .. Petitioner Versus Bajaj Auto Limited, through its Authorized Signatory .. Respondent AND WRIT PETITION NO. 3599 OF 2022 Jeevan Eknath Mali Versus Bajaj Auto Limited, through its Authorized Signatory .. Petitioner .. Respondent AND WRIT PETITION NO. 3595 OF 2022 Devidas Ramkishan Jadhav .. Petitioner Versus Bajaj Auto Limited, through its Authorized Signatory .. Respondent AND WRIT PETITION NO. 1965 OF 2022 Sambha Baliram Chilke .. Petitioner Versus Bajaj Auto Limited, through 5 wp_5814.22.odt its Authorized Signatory .. Respondent AND WRIT PETITION NO. 816 OF 2022

Legal Reasoning

Mahesh Shrikrishna Wange .. Petitioner Versus Bajaj Auto Limited, through its Authorized Signatory .. Respondent AND WRIT PETITION NO. 3838 OF 2022 Manik Laxman Pandav .. Petitioner Versus Bajaj Auto Limited, through its Authorized Signatory .. Respondent AND WRIT PETITION NO. 7360 OF 2022 Rajendra Devidas Deshmane .. Petitioner Versus Bajaj Auto Limited, through its Authorized Signatory .. Respondent AND WRIT PETITION NO. 3844 OF 2022 Hanuman Dnyanoba Kate .. Petitioner Versus Bajaj Auto Limited, through its Authorized Signatory .. Respondent AND WRIT PETITION NO. 11928 OF 2022 Suresh Rangnath Sonwane .. Petitioner Versus Bajaj Auto Limited, through its Authorized Signatory .. Respondent AND WRIT PETITION NO. 11929 OF 2022 6 wp_5814.22.odt Anu Rangnath Nimbalkar .. Petitioner Versus Bajaj Auto Limited, through its Authorized Signatory .. Respondent AND WRIT PETITION NO. 11565 OF 2022 Ramchandra Harishchandra Jawale .. Petitioner Versus Bajaj Auto Limited, through its Authorized Signatory .. Respondent AND WRIT PETITION NO. 11566 OF 2022 Rajesaheb Uttamrao Chavan .. Petitioner Versus Bajaj Auto Limited, through its Authorized Signatory .. Respondent AND WRIT PETITION NO. 11567 OF 2022 Kerbaji Ganpatrao Ghadlinge .. Petitioner Versus Bajaj Auto Limited, through its Authorized Signatory .. Respondent AND WRIT PETITION NO. 11568 OF 2022 Dilip Prabhat Pimple Versus Bajaj Auto Limited, through its Authorized Signatory .. Petitioner .. Respondent AND WRIT PETITION NO. 11570 OF 2022 Babu Maroti Gursudkar .. Petitioner Versus Bajaj Auto Limited, through 7 wp_5814.22.odt its Authorized Signatory .. Respondent AND WRIT PETITION NO. 12709 OF 2022 Pandit Bhaurao Mannajkar .. Petitioner Versus Bajaj Auto Limited, through its Authorized Signatory .. Respondent AND WRIT PETITION NO. 12710 OF 2022 Narayan Wamanrao Ghule .. Petitioner Versus Bajaj Auto Limited, through its Authorized Signatory .. Respondent AND WRIT PETITION NO. 12708 OF 2022 Sanjay Shivling Gulave .. Petitioner Versus Bajaj Auto Limited, through its Authorized Signatory .. Respondent AND WRIT PETITION NO. 12707 OF 2022 Vithal Bapurao Hundiwale .. Petitioner Versus Bajaj Auto Limited, through its Authorized Signatory .. Respondent AND WRIT PETITION NO. 12704 OF 2022 Siddhling Punjayya Kirtankar .. Petitioner Versus Bajaj Auto Limited, through its Authorized Signatory .. Respondent AND WRIT PETITION NO. 12703 OF 2022 8 wp_5814.22.odt Ashok Baburao Lahane .. Petitioner Versus Bajaj Auto Limited, through its Authorized Signatory .. Respondent AND WRIT PETITION NO. 12702 OF 2022 Rameshwar Babanrao Patange .. Petitioner Versus Bajaj Auto Limited, through its Authorized Signatory .. Respondent AND WRIT PETITION NO. 12391 OF 2022 Nanasaheb Changdev Divate .. Petitioner Versus Bajaj Auto Limited, through its Authorized Signatory .. Respondent Shri B. R. Kaware, Advocate h/f Shri Nitin L. Dhobale, Advocate for the Petitioner in all above matters. Shri S. K. Talsania, Senior Advocate i/by Shri S. V. Dankh, Advocate a/w Shri Vinay Deshpande and Shri Rahul Pitekar, Advocates, Advocate for Respondent in all above matters. AND WRIT PETITION NO. 11755 OF 2018 M/s Bajaj Auto Limited, Bajaj Nagar Aurangabad Versus .. Petitioner Kishor Shivaji Harishchandre .. Respondent Shri S. K. Talsania, Senior Advocate i/by Shri S. V. Dankh, Advocate for the Petitioner. Shri Arvind Ambetkar, Advocate h/f Shri S. R. Andhale, Advocate for the Respondent. AND WRIT PETITION NO. 11750 OF 2018 9 wp_5814.22.odt Bajaj Auto Limited Versus .. Petitioner Balasaheb Sonba Choudhari .. Respondent Shri S. K. Talsania, Senior Advocate i/by Shri S. V. Dankh, Advocate for the Petitioner. Shri B. R. Kaware, Advocate for the Respondent. AND WRIT PETITION NO. 8841 OF 2019 M/s Bajaj Auto Limited, Bajaj Nagar Waluj .. Petitioner Versus Prabhakar Vitthal Akhade .. Respondent Shri Sachin V. Dankh, Advocate for the Petitioner. Shri B. R. Kaware, Advocate for the Respondent. AND WRIT PETITION NO. 11749 OF 2018 M/s Bajaj Auto Limited, Bajaj Nagar Aurangabad Versus .. Petitioner Suryakant Baliram Kendre .. Respondent Shri Sachin V. Dankh, Advocate for the Petitioner. Shri B. R. Kaware, Advocate for the Respondent. AND WRIT PETITION NO. 11784 OF 2018 M/s Bajaj Auto Limited, Bajaj Nagar Aurangabad Versus .. Petitioner Subhash Kondiba Walke .. Respondent Shri Sachin V. Dankh, Advocate for the Petitioner. Shri B. R. Kaware, Advocate for the Respondent. AND WRIT PETITION NO. 11760 OF 2018 10 wp_5814.22.odt M/s Bajaj Auto Limited, Bajaj Nagar Aurangabad Versus .. Petitioner Santosh Rambhau Gaikwad .. Respondent Shri Sachin V. Dankh, Advocate for the Petitioner. Shri B. R. Kaware, Advocate for the Respondent. AND WRIT PETITION NO. 11751 OF 2018 M/s Bajaj Auto Limited, Bajaj Nagar Aurangabad Versus .. Petitioner Suryabhan Anna Shinde .. Respondent Shri Sachin V. Dankh, Advocate for the Petitioner. Shri B. R. Kaware, Advocate for the Respondent. AND WRIT PETITION NO. 11795 OF 2018 M/s Bajaj Auto Limited, Bajaj Nagar Aurangabad Versus .. Petitioner Shivaji Vinayakrao Godke .. Respondent Shri Sachin V. Dankh, Advocate for the Petitioner. Shri B. R. Kaware, Advocate for the Respondent. AND WRIT PETITION NO. 11810 OF 2018 M/s Bajaj Auto Limited, Bajaj Nagar Aurangabad Versus .. Petitioner Dilip Kashinath Patil .. Respondent Shri Sachin V. Dankh, Advocate for the Petitioner. Shri B. R. Kaware, Advocate for the Respondent. AND WRIT PETITION NO. 14294 OF 2019 11 wp_5814.22.odt M/s Bajaj Auto Limited .. Petitioner Versus Ram Limbaji Kamble .. Respondent Shri Sachin V. Dankh, Advocate for the Petitioner. AND WRIT PETITION NO. 14293 OF 2019 M/s Bajaj Auto Limited .. Petitioner Versus Pradeepkumar Devidas Ingle .. Respondent Shri Sachin V. Dankh, Advocate for the Petitioner. Shri B. R. Kaware, Advocate for the Respondent. AND WRIT PETITION NO. 11769 OF 2018 M/s Bajaj Auto Limited, Bajaj Nagar Aurangabad Versus .. Petitioner Narayan Waman Ghule .. Respondent Shri Sachin V. Dankh, Advocate for the Petitioner. Shri B. R. Kaware, Advocate for the Respondent. AND WRIT PETITION NO. 9009 OF 2019 M/s Bajaj Auto Limited, Bajaj Nagar Waluj, Aurangabad Versus .. Petitioner Dattatray Dhondiram Solunke .. Respondent Shri Sachin V. Dankh, Advocate for the Petitioner. Shri B. R. Kaware, Advocate for the Respondent. AND WRIT PETITION NO. 11830 OF 2018 M/s Bajaj Auto Limited, Bajaj Nagar Aurangabad Versus .. Petitioner 12 wp_5814.22.odt Ashok Baburao Kadam .. Respondent Shri Sachin V. Dankh, Advocate for the Petitioner. Shri B. R. Kaware, Advocate for the Respondent. AND WRIT PETITION NO. 11828 OF 2018 M/s Bajaj Auto Limited, Bajaj Nagar Aurangabad Versus .. Petitioner Kothule Ganesh Bhimrao .. Respondent Shri Sachin V. Dankh, Advocate for the Petitioner. Shri B. R. Kaware, Advocate for the Respondent. AND WRIT PETITION NO. 11801 OF 2018 M/s Bajaj Auto Limited, Bajaj Nagar Aurangabad Versus .. Petitioner Sukhdev Vishnu Kothawal .. Respondent Shri Sachin V. Dankh, Advocate for the Petitioner. Shri B. R. Kaware, Advocate for the Respondent. AND WRIT PETITION NO. 11770 OF 2018 M/s Bajaj Auto Limited, Bajaj Nagar Aurangabad Versus .. Petitioner Rajesh Tukaram Patil .. Respondent Shri Sachin V. Dankh, Advocate for the Petitioner. AND WRIT PETITION NO. 11803 OF 2018 M/s Bajaj Auto Limited, Bajaj Nagar Aurangabad Versus .. Petitioner Ghamlal Rajaram Lohar .. Respondent 13 wp_5814.22.odt Shri Sachin V. Dankh, Advocate for the Petitioner. Shri B. R. Kaware, Advocate for the Respondent. AND WRIT PETITION NO. 11799 OF 2018 M/s Bajaj Auto Limited, Bajaj Nagar Aurangabad Versus .. Petitioner Dilip Manchakrao Kadam .. Respondent Shri Sachin V. Dankh, Advocate for the Petitioner. Shri B. R. Kaware, Advocate for the Respondent. AND WRIT PETITION NO. 11763 OF 2018 M/s Bajaj Auto Limited, Bajaj Nagar Aurangabad Versus .. Petitioner Bhausaheb Gopinath Rathod .. Respondent Shri Sachin V. Dankh, Advocate for the Petitioner. Shri B. R. Kaware, Advocate for the Respondent. AND WRIT PETITION NO. 11777 OF 2018 M/s Bajaj Auto Limited, Bajaj Nagar Aurangabad Versus Manoj Mukund Kale .. Petitioner .. Respondent Shri Sachin V. Dankh, Advocate for the Petitioner. Shri B. R. Kaware, Advocate for the Respondent. AND WRIT PETITION NO. 11809 OF 2018 M/s Bajaj Auto Limited, Bajaj Nagar Aurangabad Versus .. Petitioner Jagdish Kashinath Kothale .. Respondent 14 wp_5814.22.odt Shri Sachin V. Dankh, Advocate for the Petitioner. Shri B. R. Kaware, Advocate for the Respondent. AND WRIT PETITION NO. 11812 OF 2018 M/s Bajaj Auto Limited, Bajaj Nagar Aurangabad Versus .. Petitioner Vaijinath Rangnath Sarge .. Respondent Shri Sachin V. Dankh, Advocate for the Petitioner. AND WRIT PETITION NO. 11790 OF 2018 Bajaj Auto Limited Aurangabad .. Petitioner Versus Jagan Baliram Suryawanshi .. Respondent Shri Sachin V. Dankh, Advocate for the Petitioner. Shri B. R. Kaware and Shri N. L. Dhobale, Advocates for the Respondent. AND WRIT PETITION NO. 11833 OF 2018 M/s Bajaj Auto Limited, Bajaj Nagar Aurangabad Versus .. Petitioner Ashok Laxmanrao Surnar .. Respondent Shri Sachin V. Dankh, Advocate for the Petitioner. Shri B. R. Kaware and Shri N. L. Dhobale, Advocates for the Respondent. AND WRIT PETITION NO. 11779 OF 2018 Bajaj Auto Limited Aurangabad .. Petitioner Versus Suresh Rangnath Sonawane .. Respondent 15 wp_5814.22.odt Shri Sachin V. Dankh, Advocate for the Petitioner. Shri B. R. Kaware and Shri N. L. Dhobale, Advocates for the Respondent. AND WRIT PETITION NO. 11829 OF 2018 M/s Bajaj Auto Limited, Bajaj Nagar Aurangabad Versus .. Petitioner Kerbaji Ganpatrao Ghadlinge .. Respondent Shri Sachin V. Dankh, Advocate for the Petitioner. Shri B. R. Kaware and Shri N. L. Dhobale, Advocates for the Respondent. AND WRIT PETITION NO. 11756 OF 2018 Bajaj Auto Limited, Aurangabad .. Petitioner Versus Rajesh Jagannath Mohite .. Respondent Shri Sachin V. Dankh, Advocate for the Petitioner. Shri B. R. Kaware, Advocate for the Respondent. AND WRIT PETITION NO. 11825 OF 2018 M/s Bajaj Auto Limited, Bajaj Nagar Aurangabad Versus .. Petitioner Bhaskar Tukaram Bodhke .. Respondent Shri Sachin V. Dankh, Advocate for the Petitioner. Shri B. R. Kaware and Shri N. L. Dhobale, Advocates for the Respondent. AND WRIT PETITION NO. 9003 OF 2019 M/s Bajaj Auto Limited, Bajaj Nagar Aurangabad Versus .. Petitioner 16 wp_5814.22.odt Jeevan Eknath Mali .. Respondent Shri Sachin V. Dankh, Advocate for the Petitioner. Shri B. R. Kaware, Advocate for the Respondent. AND WRIT PETITION NO. 11772 OF 2018 M/s Bajaj Auto Limited, Bajaj Nagar Aurangabad Versus .. Petitioner Sandeepkumar Vasantrao Magar .. Respondent Shri Sachin V. Dankh, Advocate for the Petitioner. Shri B. R. Kaware and Shri N. L. Dhobale, Advocates for the Respondent. AND WRIT PETITION NO. 11765 OF 2018 M/s Bajaj Auto Limited, Bajaj Nagar Aurangabad Versus .. Petitioner Manik Laxmanrao Pandav .. Respondent Shri Sachin V. Dankh, Advocate for the Petitioner. Shri B. R. Kaware and Shri N. L. Dhobale, Advocates for the Respondent. AND WRIT PETITION NO. 8842 OF 2019 M/s Bajaj Auto Limited, Bajaj Nagar Aurangabad Versus .. Petitioner Sanjeev Anandrao More .. Respondent Shri Sachin V. Dankh, Advocate for the Petitioner. Shri B. R. Kaware, Advocate for the Respondent. AND WRIT PETITION NO. 11781 OF 2018 M/s Bajaj Auto Limited, Bajaj Nagar 17 wp_5814.22.odt Aurangabad Versus .. Petitioner Arjun Vishnu Solanke .. Respondent Shri Sachin V. Dankh, Advocate for the Petitioner. Shri B. R. Kaware and Shri N. L. Dhobale, Advocates for the Respondent. AND WRIT PETITION NO. 11782 OF 2018 M/s Bajaj Auto Limited, Bajaj Nagar Aurangabad Versus .. Petitioner Anil Shankar Gaikwad .. Respondent Shri Sachin V. Dankh, Advocate for the Petitioner. Shri B. R. Kaware and Shri N. L. Dhobale, Advocates for the Respondent. AND WRIT PETITION NO. 11786 OF 2018 M/s Bajaj Auto Limited, Bajaj Nagar Aurangabad Versus .. Petitioner Pralhad Asaram Kashid .. Respondent Shri Sachin V. Dankh, Advocate for the Petitioner. Shri B. R. Kaware and Shri N. L. Dhobale, Advocates for the Respondent. AND WRIT PETITION NO. 11789 OF 2018 M/s Bajaj Auto Limited, Bajaj Nagar Aurangabad Versus .. Petitioner Sanjay Govindrao Nikam .. Respondent Shri Sachin V. Dankh, Advocate for the Petitioner. Shri B. R. Kaware and Shri N. L. Dhobale, Advocates for the Respondent. 18 wp_5814.22.odt AND WRIT PETITION NO. 11766 OF 2018 M/s Bajaj Auto Limited, Bajaj Nagar Aurangabad Versus .. Petitioner Rajendra Devidas Deshmane .. Respondent Shri Sachin V. Dankh, Advocate for the Petitioner. Shri B. R. Kaware and Shri N. L. Dhobale, Advocates for the Respondent. AND WRIT PETITION NO. 11783 OF 2018 M/s Bajaj Auto Limited, Bajaj Nagar Aurangabad Versus .. Petitioner Prakash Mariba Dakore .. Respondent Shri Sachin V. Dankh, Advocate for the Petitioner. Shri B. R. Kaware, Advocate for the Respondent. AND WRIT PETITION NO. 11816 OF 2018 M/s Bajaj Auto Limited, Bajaj Nagar Aurangabad Versus .. Petitioner Prakash Macchindra Pawar .. Respondent Shri Sachin V. Dankh, Advocate for the Petitioner. Shri B. R. Kaware and Shri N. L. Dhobale, Advocates for the Respondent. AND WRIT PETITION NO. 8977 OF 2019 M/s Bajaj Auto Limited, Bajaj Nagar Aurangabad Versus .. Petitioner Vikas Ramesh Shrikhande .. Respondent Shri Sachin V. Dankh, Advocate for the Petitioner. 19 wp_5814.22.odt Shri B. R. Kaware, Advocate for the Respondent. AND WRIT PETITION NO. 11822 OF 2018 M/s Bajaj Auto Limited, Bajaj Nagar Aurangabad Versus .. Petitioner Lahu Sakharam Jogdand .. Respondent Shri Sachin V. Dankh, Advocate for the Petitioner. Shri B. R. Kaware and Shri N. L. Dhobale, Advocates for the Respondent. AND WRIT PETITION NO. 11793 OF 2018 M/s Bajaj Auto Limited, Bajaj Nagar Aurangabad Versus .. Petitioner Balasaheb Haribhau Kale .. Respondent Shri Sachin V. Dankh, Advocate for the Petitioner. Shri B. R. Kaware and Shri N. L. Dhobale, Advocates for the Respondent. AND WRIT PETITION NO. 11823 OF 2018 M/s Bajaj Auto Limited, Bajaj Nagar Aurangabad Versus .. Petitioner Swarup Vitthalrao Dhumal .. Respondent Shri Sachin V. Dankh, Advocate for the Petitioner. Shri B. R. Kaware and Shri N. L. Dhobale, Advocates for the Respondent. AND WRIT PETITION NO. 11771 OF 2018 M/s Bajaj Auto Limited, Bajaj Nagar Aurangabad Versus .. Petitioner 20 wp_5814.22.odt Shriram Trimbakrao Suryawanshi .. Respondent Shri Sachin V. Dankh, Advocate for the Petitioner. Shri B. R. Kaware and Shri N. L. Dhobale, Advocates for the Respondent. AND WRIT PETITION NO. 9007 OF 2019 M/s Bajaj Auto Limited, Bajaj Nagar Aurangabad Versus .. Petitioner Rajesaheb Uttamrao Chavan .. Respondent Shri Sachin V. Dankh, Advocate for the Petitioner. Shri B. R. Kaware, Advocate for the Respondent. AND WRIT PETITION NO. 11827 OF 2018 M/s Bajaj Auto Limited, Bajaj Nagar Aurangabad Versus .. Petitioner Santosh Vasantrao Ramdasi .. Respondent Shri Sachin V. Dankh, Advocate for the Petitioner. Shri B. R. Kaware and Shri N. L. Dhobale, Advocates for the Respondent. AND WRIT PETITION NO. 11764 OF 2018 M/s Bajaj Auto Limited, Bajaj Nagar Aurangabad Versus .. Petitioner Ratnadip Virbhadra Swami .. Respondent Shri Sachin V. Dankh, Advocate for the Petitioner. Shri B. R. Kaware and Shri N. L. Dhobale, Advocates for the Respondent. AND WRIT PETITION NO. 11791 OF 2018 21 wp_5814.22.odt M/s Bajaj Auto Limited, Bajaj Nagar Aurangabad Versus .. Petitioner Arjun Shivram Jagtap .. Respondent Shri Sachin V. Dankh, Advocate for the Petitioner. Shri B. R. Kaware and Shri N. L. Dhobale, Advocates for the Respondent. AND WRIT PETITION NO. 11819 OF 2018 M/s Bajaj Auto Limited, Bajaj Nagar Aurangabad Versus .. Petitioner Sanjay Sampat Ahire .. Respondent Shri Sachin V. Dankh, Advocate for the Petitioner. Shri B. R. Kaware and Shri N. L. Dhobale, Advocates for the Respondent. AND WRIT PETITION NO. 11758 OF 2018 M/s Bajaj Auto Limited, Bajaj Nagar Aurangabad Versus .. Petitioner Mahesh Bhimashankar Yenure .. Respondent Shri Sachin V. Dankh, Advocate for the Petitioner. Shri B. R. Kaware and Shri N. L. Dhobale, Advocates for the Respondent. AND WRIT PETITION NO. 11778 OF 2018 M/s Bajaj Auto Limited, Bajaj Nagar Aurangabad Versus .. Petitioner Manoj Chagan Anwekar .. Respondent Shri Sachin V. Dankh, Advocate for the Petitioner. Shri B. R. Kaware and Shri N. L. Dhobale, Advocates for the Respondent. 22 wp_5814.22.odt AND WRIT PETITION NO. 11757 OF 2018 M/s Bajaj Auto Limited, Bajaj Nagar Aurangabad Versus .. Petitioner Kalyan Ramnath Mutkule .. Respondent Shri Sachin V. Dankh, Advocate for the Petitioner. Shri B. R. Kaware and Shri N. L. Dhobale, Advocates for the Respondent. AND WRIT PETITION NO. 11754 OF 2018 M/s Bajaj Auto Limited, Bajaj Nagar Aurangabad Versus .. Petitioner Angadh Anirudh Jadhav .. Respondent Shri Sachin V. Dankh, Advocate for the Petitioner. Shri B. R. Kaware, Advocate for the Respondent. AND WRIT PETITION NO. 11814 OF 2018 M/s Bajaj Auto Limited, Bajaj Nagar Aurangabad Versus .. Petitioner Sanjay Shivling Gulave .. Respondent Shri Sachin V. Dankh, Advocate for the Petitioner. Shri B. R. Kaware and Shri N. L. Dhobale, Advocates for the Respondent. AND WRIT PETITION NO. 11820 OF 2018 M/s Bajaj Auto Limited, Bajaj Nagar Aurangabad Versus .. Petitioner Ramkishan Vishwanath Pendharkar .. Respondent 23 wp_5814.22.odt Shri Sachin V. Dankh, Advocate for the Petitioner. Shri B. R. Kaware and Shri N. L. Dhobale, Advocates for the Respondent. AND WRIT PETITION NO. 9006 OF 2019 M/s Bajaj Auto Limited, Bajaj Nagar Aurangabad Versus .. Petitioner Gajanan Manohar Kharche .. Respondent Shri Sachin V. Dankh, Advocate for the Petitioner. Shri B. R. Kaware, Advocate for the Respondent. AND WRIT PETITION NO. 11807 OF 2018 M/s Bajaj Auto Limited, Bajaj Nagar Aurangabad Versus .. Petitioner Pandurang Sonaba Choudhari .. Respondent Shri Sachin V. Dankh, Advocate for the Petitioner. Shri B. R. Kaware and Shri N. L. Dhobale, Advocates for the Respondent. AND WRIT PETITION NO. 9002 OF 2019 M/s Bajaj Auto Limited, Bajaj Nagar Aurangabad Versus .. Petitioner Babu Maroti Gursudkar .. Respondent Shri Sachin V. Dankh, Advocate for the Petitioner. Shri B. R. Kaware, Advocates for the Respondent. AND WRIT PETITION NO. 11767 OF 2018 M/s Bajaj Auto Limited, Bajaj Nagar Aurangabad Versus .. Petitioner 24 wp_5814.22.odt Vishnu Sadashiv Lokhande .. Respondent Shri Sachin V. Dankh, Advocate for the Petitioner. AND WRIT PETITION NO. 8976 OF 2019 M/s Bajaj Auto Limited, Bajaj Nagar Aurangabad Versus .. Petitioner Dilip Prabhat Pimpale .. Respondent Shri Sachin V. Dankh, Advocate for the Petitioner. Shri B. R. Kaware, Advocate for the Respondent. AND WRIT PETITION NO. 11832 OF 2018 M/s Bajaj Auto Limited, Bajaj Nagar Aurangabad Versus .. Petitioner Vilas Wamanrao Lahane .. Respondent Shri Sachin V. Dankh, Advocate for the Petitioner. Shri B. R. Kaware and Shri N. L. Dhobale, Advocates for the Respondent. AND WRIT PETITION NO. 11804 OF 2018 M/s Bajaj Auto Limited, Bajaj Nagar Aurangabad Versus .. Petitioner Kailash Madhukar Sawant .. Respondent Shri Sachin V. Dankh, Advocate for the Petitioner. Shri B. R. Kaware and Shri N. L. Dhobale, Advocates for the Respondent. AND WRIT PETITION NO. 12115 OF 2018 M/s Bajaj Auto Limited, Bajaj Nagar Aurangabad .. Petitioner 25 wp_5814.22.odt Versus Yakub Rangnath Bhambhal .. Respondent Shri Sachin V. Dankh, Advocate for the Petitioner. Shri B. R. Kaware and Shri N. L. Dhobale, Advocates for the Respondent. AND WRIT PETITION NO. 11797 OF 2018 M/s Bajaj Auto Limited, Bajaj Nagar Aurangabad Versus .. Petitioner Rangnath Nivrutti Landge .. Respondent Shri Sachin V. Dankh, Advocate for the Petitioner. Shri B. R. Kaware and Shri N. L. Dhobale, Advocates for the Respondent. AND WRIT PETITION NO. 11831 OF 2018 M/s Bajaj Auto Limited, Bajaj Nagar Aurangabad Versus .. Petitioner Datta Shankar Gaikwad .. Respondent Shri Sachin V. Dankh, Advocate for the Petitioner. Shri B. R. Kaware and Shri N. L. Dhobale, Advocates for the Respondent. AND WRIT PETITION NO. 11798 OF 2018 M/s Bajaj Auto Limited, Bajaj Nagar Aurangabad Versus .. Petitioner Sambha Baliram Chilke .. Respondent Shri Sachin V. Dankh, Advocate for the Petitioner. Shri B. R. Kaware and Shri N. L. Dhobale, Advocates for the Respondent. AND 26 wp_5814.22.odt WRIT PETITION NO. 11813 OF 2018 M/s Bajaj Auto Limited, Bajaj Nagar Aurangabad Versus .. Petitioner Dattatraya Umakant Polawar .. Respondent Shri Sachin V. Dankh, Advocate for the Petitioner. Shri B. R. Kaware and Shri N. L. Dhobale, Advocates for the Respondent. AND WRIT PETITION NO. 11773 OF 2018 M/s Bajaj Auto Limited, Bajaj Nagar Aurangabad Versus .. Petitioner Raju Dhondappa Akhade .. Respondent Shri Sachin V. Dankh, Advocate for the Petitioner. Shri B. R. Kaware and Shri N. L. Dhobale, Advocates for the Respondent. AND WRIT PETITION NO. 11821 OF 2018 M/s Bajaj Auto Limited, Bajaj Nagar Aurangabad Versus .. Petitioner Madhav Sonaji Wabale .. Respondent Shri Sachin V. Dankh, Advocate for the Petitioner. Shri B. R. Kaware and Shri N. L. Dhobale, Advocates for the Respondent. AND WRIT PETITION NO. 11808 OF 2018 M/s Bajaj Auto Limited, Bajaj Nagar Aurangabad Versus .. Petitioner Bhagwan Murlidhar Sawant .. Respondent Shri Sachin V. Dankh, Advocate for the Petitioner. 27 wp_5814.22.odt Shri B. R. Kaware and Shri N. L. Dhobale, Advocates for the Respondent. AND WRIT PETITION NO. 11753 OF 2018 M/s Bajaj Auto Limited, Bajaj Nagar Aurangabad Versus .. Petitioner Achut Ambadas Sapkal .. Respondent Shri Sachin V. Dankh, Advocate for the Petitioner. Shri B. R. Kaware and Shri N. L. Dhobale, Advocates for the Respondent. AND WRIT PETITION NO. 11776 OF 2018 M/s Bajaj Auto Limited, Bajaj Nagar Aurangabad Versus .. Petitioner Pandurang Bhikan Gore .. Respondent Shri Sachin V. Dankh, Advocate for the Petitioner. Shri B. R. Kaware and Shri N. L. Dhobale, Advocates for the Respondent. AND WRIT PETITION NO. 11788 OF 2018 M/s Bajaj Auto Limited, Bajaj Nagar Aurangabad Versus .. Petitioner Devidas Ramkisan Jadhav .. Respondent Shri Sachin V. Dankh, Advocate for the Petitioner. Shri B. R. Kaware and Shri N. L. Dhobale, Advocates for the Respondent. AND WRIT PETITION NO. 11761 OF 2018 M/s Bajaj Auto Limited, Bajaj Nagar Aurangabad .. Petitioner 28 wp_5814.22.odt Versus Madhukar Nivrutti Sabane .. Respondent Shri Sachin V. Dankh, Advocate for the Petitioner. AND WRIT PETITION NO. 9005 OF 2019 M/s Bajaj Auto Limited, Bajaj Nagar Aurangabad Versus .. Petitioner Nanasaheb Changdev Divate .. Respondent Shri Sachin V. Dankh, Advocate for the Petitioner. Shri B. R. Kaware, Advocate for the Respondent. AND WRIT PETITION NO. 11787 OF 2018 M/s Bajaj Auto Limited, Bajaj Nagar Aurangabad Versus .. Petitioner Hanuman Dnyanoba Kate .. Respondent Shri Sachin V. Dankh, Advocate for the Petitioner. Shri B. R. Kaware and Shri N. L. Dhobale, Advocates for the Respondent. AND WRIT PETITION NO. 11815 OF 2018 M/s Bajaj Auto Limited, Bajaj Nagar Aurangabad Versus .. Petitioner Anant Haribhau Kathar .. Respondent Shri Sachin V. Dankh, Advocate for the Petitioner. Shri B. R. Kaware and Shri N. L. Dhobale, Advocates for the Respondent. AND WRIT PETITION NO. 11792 OF 2018 M/s Bajaj Auto Limited, Bajaj Nagar 29 wp_5814.22.odt Aurangabad Versus .. Petitioner Santosh Bharat Narayankar .. Respondent Shri Sachin V. Dankh, Advocate for the Petitioner. Shri B. R. Kaware and Shri N. L. Dhobale, Advocates for the Respondent. AND WRIT PETITION NO. 11817 OF 2018 M/s Bajaj Auto Limited, Bajaj Nagar Aurangabad Versus .. Petitioner Anu Rangnath Nimbalkar .. Respondent Shri Sachin V. Dankh, Advocate for the Petitioner. Shri B. R. Kaware, Advocate for the Respondent. AND WRIT PETITION NO. 11762 OF 2018 M/s Bajaj Auto Limited, Bajaj Nagar Aurangabad Versus .. Petitioner Anna Govindrao Sangle .. Respondent Shri Sachin V. Dankh, Advocate for the Petitioner. Shri B. R. Kaware and Shri N. L. Dhobale, Advocates for the Respondent. AND WRIT PETITION NO. 11818 OF 2018 M/s Bajaj Auto Limited, Bajaj Nagar Aurangabad Versus .. Petitioner Kisan Ramsingh Rathod .. Respondent Shri Sachin V. Dankh, Advocate for the Petitioner. Shri B. R. Kaware and Shri N. L. Dhobale, Advocates for the Respondent. AND 30 wp_5814.22.odt WRIT PETITION NO. 11824 OF 2018 M/s Bajaj Auto Limited, Bajaj Nagar Aurangabad Versus Shahji Subrao Sable .. Petitioner .. Respondent Shri Sachin V. Dankh, Advocate for the Petitioner. AND WRIT PETITION NO. 11802 OF 2018 M/s Bajaj Auto Limited, Bajaj Nagar Aurangabad Versus .. Petitioner Navnath Maruti Shinde .. Respondent Shri Sachin V. Dankh, Advocate for the Petitioner. Shri B. R. Kaware and Shri N. L. Dhobale, Advocates for the Respondent. AND WRIT PETITION NO. 11834 OF 2018 M/s Bajaj Auto Limited, Bajaj Nagar Aurangabad Versus .. Petitioner Pradeep Bhagwat Kolhe .. Respondent Shri Sachin V. Dankh, Advocate for the Petitioner. Shri B. R. Kaware, Advocate for the Respondent. AND WRIT PETITION NO. 11826 OF 2018 M/s Bajaj Auto Limited, Bajaj Nagar Aurangabad Versus .. Petitioner Ranjit Nanderam Nikalje .. Respondent Shri Sachin V. Dankh, Advocate for the Petitioner. Shri B. R. Kaware and Shri N. L. Dhobale, Advocates for the Respondent. 31 wp_5814.22.odt AND WRIT PETITION NO. 11780 OF 2018 M/s Bajaj Auto Limited, Bajaj Nagar Aurangabad Versus .. Petitioner Vasudev Vishnu Londhe .. Respondent Shri Sachin V. Dankh, Advocate for the Petitioner. Shri B. R. Kaware and Shri N. L. Dhobale, Advocates for the Respondent. AND WRIT PETITION NO. 11796 OF 2018 M/s Bajaj Auto Limited, Bajaj Nagar Aurangabad Versus .. Petitioner Dnyaneshwar Babanrao Patange .. Respondent Shri Sachin V. Dankh, Advocate for the Petitioner. Shri B. R. Kaware and Shri N. L. Dhobale, Advocates for the Respondent. AND WRIT PETITION NO. 11794 OF 2018 M/s Bajaj Auto Limited, Bajaj Nagar Aurangabad Versus .. Petitioner Ravindra Sahebrao Ghodake .. Respondent Shri Sachin V. Dankh, Advocate for the Petitioner. Shri B. R. Kaware and Shri N. L. Dhobale, Advocates for the Respondent. AND WRIT PETITION NO. 9004 OF 2019 M/s Bajaj Auto Limited, Bajaj Nagar Aurangabad Versus .. Petitioner Ganesh Radhakishan Waghmare .. Respondent 32 wp_5814.22.odt Shri Sachin V. Dankh, Advocate for the Petitioner. Shri B. R. Kaware and Shri N. L. Dhobale, Advocates for the Respondent. AND WRIT PETITION NO. 11774 OF 2018 M/s Bajaj Auto Limited, Bajaj Nagar Aurangabad Versus .. Petitioner Mukul Trimbak Shevalikar .. Respondent Shri Sachin V. Dankh, Advocate for the Petitioner. Shri B. R. Kaware and Shri N. L. Dhobale, Advocates for the Respondent. AND WRIT PETITION NO. 11785 OF 2018 M/s Bajaj Auto Limited, Bajaj Nagar Aurangabad Versus .. Petitioner Santosh Kacharu Yewale .. Respondent Shri Sachin V. Dankh, Advocate for the Petitioner. Shri B. R. Kaware and Shri N. L. Dhobale, Advocates for the Respondent. AND WRIT PETITION NO. 11806 OF 2018 M/s Bajaj Auto Limited, Bajaj Nagar Aurangabad Versus .. Petitioner Ramchandra Harishchandra Javale .. Respondent Shri Sachin V. Dankh, Advocate for the Petitioner. Shri B. R. Kaware and Shri N. L. Dhobale, Advocates for the Respondent. AND WRIT PETITION NO. 11768 OF 2018 M/s Bajaj Auto Limited, Bajaj Nagar 33 wp_5814.22.odt Aurangabad Versus .. Petitioner Sanjay Manchkrao Kadam .. Respondent Shri Sachin V. Dankh, Advocate for the Petitioner. Shri B. R. Kaware and Shri N. L. Dhobale, Advocates for the Respondent. AND WRIT PETITION NO. 11775 OF 2018 M/s Bajaj Auto Limited, Bajaj Nagar Aurangabad Versus .. Petitioner Suresh Digambar Gore .. Respondent Shri Sachin V. Dankh, Advocate for the Petitioner. Shri B. R. Kaware and Shri N. L. Dhobale, Advocates for the Respondent. AND WRIT PETITION NO. 11811 OF 2018 M/s Bajaj Auto Limited, Bajaj Nagar Aurangabad Versus .. Petitioner Baban Bhagaji Jagtap .. Respondent Shri Sachin V. Dankh, Advocate for the Petitioner. Shri B. R. Kaware and Shri N. L. Dhobale, Advocates for the Respondent. AND WRIT PETITION NO. 9008 OF 2019 M/s Bajaj Auto Limited, Bajaj Nagar Aurangabad Versus .. Petitioner Ashok Madhukar Badgujar .. Respondent Shri Sachin V. Dankh, Advocate for the Petitioner. Shri B. R. Kaware, Advocate for the Respondent. AND 34 wp_5814.22.odt WRIT PETITION NO. 9001 OF 2019 M/s Bajaj Auto Limited, Bajaj Nagar Aurangabad Versus .. Petitioner Mahesh Shrikrishna Wange .. Respondent Shri Sachin V. Dankh, Advocate for the Petitioner. Shri B. R. Kaware, Advocate for the Respondent. AND WRIT PETITION NO. 11759 OF 2018 M/s Bajaj Auto Limited, Bajaj Nagar Aurangabad Versus .. Petitioner Balu Vasudev Ghodake .. Respondent Shri Sachin V. Dankh, Advocate for the Petitioner. Shri B. R. Kaware and Shri N. L. Dhobale, Advocates for the Respondent. AND WRIT PETITION NO. 11805 OF 2018 M/s Bajaj Auto Limited, Bajaj Nagar Aurangabad Versus .. Petitioner Sudhakar Panditrao Pawar .. Respondent Shri Sachin V. Dankh, Advocate for the Petitioner. Shri B. R. Kaware and Shri N. L. Dhobale, Advocates for the Respondent. AND WRIT PETITION NO. 11752 OF 2018 M/s Bajaj Auto Limited, Bajaj Nagar Aurangabad Versus .. Petitioner Vitthal Chagan Damle .. Respondent Shri Sachin V. Dankh, Advocate for the Petitioner. Shri B. R. Kaware and Shri N. L. Dhobale, Advocates for the 35 wp_5814.22.odt Respondent. AND WRIT PETITION NO. 11800 OF 2018 M/s Bajaj Auto Limited, Bajaj Nagar Aurangabad Versus .. Petitioner Sumant Ramchandra Dambre .. Respondent Shri Sachin V. Dankh, Advocate for the Petitioner. Shri B. R. Kaware and Shri N. L. Dhobale, Advocates for the Respondent. CORAM : SANDEEP V. MARNE, J. 13TH DECEMBER, 2022. DATE : FINAL ORDER : . Some of the petitions are not on today’s board. Mr. Dankh, learned counsel for petitioner has mentioned those matters and requested for taking them on board. With the consent of the advocates appearing for parties, those matters are also taken on today’s board. 2. Rival petitions are filed by the employer/Bajaj Auto Limited as well as by its workmen challenging awards of the Labour Courts answering references partly in affirmative and directing payment of lump-sum compensation calculated at 65 days’ salary inclusive of all allowances for the number of years the workmen have actually worked. For calculating the salary, the minimum salary of Rs. 8,000/- per month has been directed to be taken into consideration. In respect of period after termination till the date of awards, the employer is directed to pay lump-sum compensation in the form of salary for 130 days. 36 wp_5814.22.odt 3. The employer/Bajaj Auto Limited is aggrieved by the awards both as regards merits as well as directions to pay interest. It must be added here that while interest is awarded in most of the references, in five references against which (Writ Petition No. 5812 of 2022, Writ Petition No. 11677 of 2022, Writ Petition No. 11678 of 2022, Writ Petition No. 11675 of 2022 and Writ Petition No. 11673 of 2022) no interest has been awarded by the Labour Court. 4. Mr. Talsania, learned senior advocate appearing for petitioner/Bajaj Auto Limited fairly submits that he would restrict the grievance in the petitions only to the aspect of award of interest at the rate of 6% per annum on the amount of compensation awarded to the workmen. On the other hand, learned counsel appearing for workmen are aggrieved by the quantification of compensation awarded by the Labour Court. 5. Let me first consider the grievance of the workmen about quantum of compensation awarded by the Labour Court. It is submitted on behalf of workmen that the Labour Court has erroneously taken into consideration monthly salary of Rs. 8,000/-, which was applicable in the year 1997. It is submitted that by the year 2012 the monthly salary of permanent employees had gone at Rs. 25,000/-and, therefore, Labour Court ought to have taken into consideration monthly salary of Rs. 25,000/- for applying formula for payment of salary. This contention is opposed by Mr. Talsania by submitting that workmen in the present petitions are fence-sitters, who did not question their termination for a long period of time and they cannot be paid a premium in the form of additional amount of 37 wp_5814.22.odt compensation over and above the one paid to their counterparts who approached Courts immediately after termination. 6. I find substance in the submissions of Mr. Talsania. The workmen involved in the present petitions are terminated during various years, the last terminations being in the year 1999. They did not question their termination by filing appropriate proceedings. Demand notices were issued in the year 2005 and reference was made on 04.07.2008. As against this, the workmen covered by judgment in the case of Bajaj Auto Limited Vs. R. P. Savant and others reported in (2004) 9 SCC 486, had approached the Labour Court immediately after their termination and after the matter traveled upto the Apex Court, a settlement was reached between the parties wherein it was decided to take into consideration monthly salary of Rs. 8,000/- for applying formula for computing lump-sum amount of compensation. Similar is the case of workmen covered by judgment in the case of Bajaj Auto Limited Vs. Bhojane Gopianth D. and others reported in (2004) 9 SCC 488, wherein also the concerned workmen had raised grievance relating to their termination within a reasonable time and the Supreme Court once again directed monthly salary of Rs. 8,000/- to be taken into consideration for computing amount of compensation. The workmen covered by the present petitions on the other hand did not file proceedings in respect of their termination till the year 2005. Therefore, they cannot be rewarded for their lethargy by awarding compensation at higher rate than the one awarded to all workmen who were vigilant in approaching the Courts. 7. There is yet another reason why the petitions filed by 38 wp_5814.22.odt workmen deserve to be rejected. As rightly submitted by Mr. Talsania, the workmen covered by the present petitions were waiting for outcome of litigations that were initiated by their cohorts and did not adopt any remedies in respect of their own rights till the year 2005. They raised demand notice for the first time in the year 2005, which resulted into a reference being made on 04th July, 2008. The awards were made partly in favour of workmen on various dates beginning from the year 2018. Immediately after the awards, the employer/Bajaj Auto Limited filed present petitions on 17th August, 2018. When the petitions came up for admission on 29th October, 2018, this Court directed deposit of principal amount of compensation sans interest. By order dated 02nd May, 2019, the deposited amount has been withdrawn by the workmen. Long after withdrawal of the compensation amount, the workmen have filed their own petitions in April 2022 for claiming enhanced amount of compensation. It is rightly pointed out by Mr. Talsania, that the petitions filed by workmen are in the nature of chance litigation after withdrawal of amount of compensation granted by the Labour Court and deposited by the employer in this Court. 8. Also of relevance is the fact that the Judgment in Bajaj Auto Limited Vs. Rajendrakumar J. Kathar and others reported in (2013) 5 SCC 691 has been deleivered by the Apex Court in the year 2013 when alleged wage rise for permanent emplyees to Rs. 25000 was already operational. Nonetheless the Apex Court directed the pay payable at the time of termination (Rs. 8000) to be taken into consideration in cases of workmen covered by judgment in Rajendrakumar J. Kathar. So what is not granted by the Apex Court to diligent workmen cannot be extended to the 39 wp_5814.22.odt Petitioner who exercised their remedies after long lapse of time. Therefore, the prayer for taking into consideration monthly salary of Rs. 25,000/- for applying formula for award of lump-sum amount of compensation deserves outright rejection. 9. Now, I come to the petitions filed by employer/Bajaj Auto limited. As observed above, Mr. Talsania, learned senior advocate has fairly given up the other points raised in the petitions and has restricted the grievance only to the direction for payment of 6% interest in some of the awards passed by the Labour Court. Mr. Talsania has pointed out that in several of the cases decided contemporaneously by the Labour Court, no interest was awarded on lump-sum amount of compensation. Even today, I have before me atleast five writ petitions (Writ Petition No. 5812 of 2022, Writ Petition No. 11677 of 2022, Writ Petition No. 11678 of 2022, Writ Petition No. 11675 of 2022 and Writ Petition No. 11673 of 2022), in which the Labour Court has not awarded any interest on the lump-sum amount of compensation. 10. Mr. Talsania has taken me through entire history of litigation under which formula for payment of lump-sum amount of compensation came to be fixed by the Apex Court. In Bajaj Auto Limited Vs. R. P. Savant and others (supra), the disputes were settled between the parties when the matter was reached upto Apex Court and in para No. 5 of the judgment it is held as under : “5. The matter has been settled between the parties. It is agreed that the order of reinstatement in favour of the workmen be set aside and instead the appellant 40 wp_5814.22.odt

Decision

management would pay to each of the workmen a lump sum amount calculated at 65 days’ salary, inclusive of all allowances, for the number of years each workman has actually worked irrespective of the days a workman may have put in in a year. It is further agreed that the calculation would be made on the basis of work during a calender year and that the calendar year in which a workman may not have worked at all would be kept out of consideration while calculating the amount. While calculating the salary for each workman the minimum salary that would be taken into account would be Rs. 8000 per month subject to the condition that if on the date of termination the salary of any particular workman is more then the calculation would be on the actual last-drawn salary. The calculation in the above manner would be made for the period upto the date of termination in the year 1997-98. For the period after termination till date, the basis of calculationw ould be lump sum three years of service on the basis aforesaid, namely, 65 days for each year i.e. salary for 195 days. The payment so calculated and made would be in full and final payment of all claims of the workmen and the workmen will have no further claim from the Company. The appeal is disposed of in the above terms agreed by learned counsel for the parties. The impugned judgment would not be treated as a precedent either on fact or on law.” 11. Thus in Bajaj Auto Limited Vs. R. P. Savant and others (supra) while noting the formula for payment of lump-sum amount of compensation as per settlement reached between the parties, the Apex Court did not direct payment of any interest on the amount of compensation. 12. In Bajaj Auto Limited Vs. Bhojane Gopianth D. and others (supra) out of the total 1197 workmen, 1006 workmen had already compromised the matter and the Supreme Court fixed the formula for payment of lump-sum amount of compensation for remaining workmen in para No. 17 of the judgment the Supreme Court directed as under : 41 wp_5814.22.odt In Civil Appeal No. 5003 of 2002, the total number of 17. respondents is 1197, out of which 1006 have compromised the matter as stated above. Now, so far as the remaining workmen are concerned, we are of the view that it would be just and expedient that they are paid a reasonable amount of compensation under Section 30 of the 1971 Act which would be calculated in the manner indicated hereinafter. Each of the remaining workmen shall be paid a lump-sum amount calculated at 85 days’ salary, inclusive of all allowances, for the number of years each workman had actually worked irrespective of the days a workman may have put in in a year. The calculation would be made on the basis of work during a calendar year and that the calendar year in which a workman may not have worked at all would be kept out of consideration while calculating the amount. In calculating the salary for each workman, the minimum salary that would be taken into account would be Rs. 8,000/- per month subject to the condition that if on the date of termination, the salary of any particular workman was more, then the calculation would be made on actual last drawn salary. The calculation in the above said manner would be made for the period up to the date of termination in the year 1997-98. For the period after termination till date, the basis of calculation would be lump-sum two years of service on the basis aforesaid, namely, 85 days for each calendar year i.e. salary for 170 days. 13. Thus again in the case of Bajaj Auto Limited Vs. Bhojane Gopianth D. and others (supra), the Apex Court did not award any interest to the workmen covered by that judgment. 14. Again in Bajaj Auto Limited Vs. Rajendrakumar J. Kathar and others reported in (2013) 5 SCC 691, the Apex Court took into consideration the conduct of the workmen covered by that decision who were silent spectators when other group of cases were filed and made following observations in para No. 13 of the judgment. 42 wp_5814.22.odt 13. The next plank of submission relates to the finding recorded by the Industrial Court relating to the absence of sufficient evidence to come to a conclusion that rotational practice had been adopted by the company. As is evincible, the Industrial Court has observed that even from the seniority list produced in complaint ULP No. 192 of 1997, it could not be pointed out that a particular workman was disengaged on earlier date and the workman who was disengaged five months to eighteen months prior was engaged in his place for the same work to have the rotation. We have already noted how the learned single Judge and the Division Bench have commented on the said aspect. In the earlier round of litigation, it relied on the same period while dealing with the rotational employment and other findings and recorded its view as under: - “Learned counsel appearing on behalf of the appellant Company made a vain attempt to challenge the finding recorded by the Industrial Court to the effect that the workmen succeeded in providing that the appellant Company had employed unfair labour practice in its establishment in relation to the matters enumerated in Item 6 of Schedule IV of the 1971 Act. We have been taken through the award of the Industrial Court in extensor from which it appears that the court recorded the said finding after threadbare discussion of evidence adduced on behalf of the parties and there being no infirmity therein, the High Court was quite justified in not interfering with the same, accordingly, it is not possible for this Court to disturb the same in view of the fact that the finding is a pure finding of fact and no interference therewith is called for.” 15. Thus again in Bajaj Auto Limited Vs. Rajendrakumar J. Kathar and others (supra) Apex Court did not award any interest to the workmen covered by that decision. 16. The awards of the Labour Courts essentially followed the formula directed by the Apex Court in its decision Bajaj Auto Limited Vs. Rajendrakumar J. Kathar and others (supra). As observed above, in none of the judgments directing payment of 43 wp_5814.22.odt lump-sum compensation, the Apex Court awarded any interest. It is not that the amount of compensation was otherwise due or payable by the employer to the workmen in 2005 or 2008. Their entitlement to receipt of compensation was determined for the first time when Awards were made in 2018 onwards. Therefore, it is incomprehensible as to on what basis the Labour Court, in select cases, proceeded to award 6% interest on the amount of compensation. In my view therefore the direction of the Labour Court for payment of interest at the rate of 6% per annum on the amount of compensation from the date of filing of reference till its actual realization is unsustainable and the same deserves to be set aside. 17. Consequently, I proceed to pass following order. O R D E R A. The writ petitions filed by the employer/Bajaj Auto Limited are partly allowed and direction of the Labour Court for payment of 6% interest per annum on the amount of lump- sum compensation is set aside. B. The Writ petitions filed by workmen are dismissed. C. In respect of workmen who have already withdrawn compensation amount deposited by the Bajaj Auto by providing solvent surety, their surety stands discharged. D. If any of the workmen who are yet to withdraw the deposited amount of compensation, such workmen are 44 wp_5814.22.odt permitted to withdraw the same without furnishing any surety. E. Rule is discharged. bsb/Dec. 22 [SANDEEP V. MARNE, J.]

This is the original judgment text as indexed from the source corpus. Always verify against the official court record before relying on it in a filing — you can do so on eCourts or the Supreme Court of India website. ← Search more judgments