High Court
Legal Reasoning
{1} 913-wp-5405-2016 IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE OF BOMBAYBENCH AT AURANGABAD913 WRIT PETITION NO. 5405 OF 2016Namdeo Rajaram Shinde….Petitioner VERSUSKukadi Sahakari Sakhar Karkhana Ltd…..Respondent ….. Mr. Parag Barde, Advocate for petitionerMr. V.P. Golewar h/f. Mr. A.V. patil, Advocate for the respondent ....... CORAM : MANJUSHA DESHPANDE, J. DATE : 28th FEBRUARY, 2025ORDER :1.Petitioner is challenging the legality, validity andcorrectness of judgment and order dated 26.08.2015 passed bylearned Member, Industrial Court, Ahmednagar in Revision [IC]No. 01/2014 thereby confirming the judgment and order dated13.01.2014 passed by learned 2nd Labour Court, Ahmednagar inApplication [BIR] No. 4/2008.2.It is the contention of the petitioner that petitionerhad joined services of respondent on 01.02.2002 on the post of‘Khalasi’ in Engineering Department. Thereafter, petitioner hasworked continuously for 240 days in a season as well as in offseason. As per the wage agreement applicable in State ofMaharashtra all unskilled workers working with Sugar factory areBhagyawant Punde {2} 913-wp-5405-2016entitled for remuneration of Rs. 6543/- per month with effectfrom 01.01.2008, but respondent-factory used to pay wages inbetween Rs. 2100/- to Rs. 3000/-. For legitimate demands,petitioner joined the Union that was active with the respondent.Union filed complaint [ULP] No. 82/2007 praying for relief ofpermanency and arrears of wages. By an interim order, LabourCourt protected services of employees, thereby directing not toterminate services of employee without following the procedurein law. Since the petitioner is a active member of the Union, byadopting vindictive approach respondent stopped providing workto the petitioner w.e.f. 20.03.2008. The petitioner was notkeeping well and could not attend duties from 02.03.2008.Therefore, he had submitted leave application by registered poston 05.03.2008. On getting fit, he approached the respondent on19.03.2008, requesting to allow him to resume the duties, hisrequest was flatly refused by respondent. Therefore, petitionerissued notice on 11.06.2008, however, respondent has notresponded to it. As a result, the petitioner was constrained toapproach Labour Court by filing application [BIR] No. 4/2008against his oral and otherwise termination. In the proceedingsbefore Labour Court after filing of written statement andadducing evidence, by judgment and order dated 13.01.2014,Bhagyawant Punde {3} 913-wp-5405-2016Labour Court was pleased to dismiss the application. Beingaggrieved by judgment of Labour Court petitioner approachedthe Industrial Court by filing Revision [IC] No. 01/2014.Industrial Court has verbatim copied the facts as well asreasoning recorded by Labour Court, and has been pleased toreject the revision vide judgment and order dated 26.08.2015.3.It is the contention of the petitioner that he isconfining his prayers in the present writ petition only to theextent of seeking remand of the matter to the Industrial Court.It is his contention that Labour Court has rejected his applicationagainst which the revision was filed by the petitioner. In hisrevision application particular grounds were raised by thepetitioner. From the memo of application, learned advocate forthe petitioner points out that he had particularly raised groundthat considering the allegation of absentism it was necessary toissue show cause notice as well as frame charges against himfollowed by departmental enquiry as provided under Section3(13) of Maharashtra Industrial Relations Act. He has also raiseda ground in order to prove allegation of absentism againstpetitioner it was necessary to bring muster before Labour Court.When he has raised specific grounds before the Industrial Courtas has been pointed out by learned advocate for the petitioner,Bhagyawant Punde {4} 913-wp-5405-2016the Industrial Court has passed order without recording anyfinding on the grounds raised by him, copying the facts as wellas reasoning from the judgment of Labour Court. Learnedadvocate for the petitioner submits that right from the factswhich are recorded by the Labour Court, word to word findingsare recorded by Industrial Court by copying the same from thejudgment of Labour Court.4.Learned advocate for the petitioner has drawn myattention to the page numbers and paragraphs which have beencopied by Industrial Court from the Judgment of Labour Court,which can be recorded in tabular form as under:Page No. & Para No. of LabourCourtCorresponding Page No. andPara No. of Industrial CourtPage No. 21, Para No. 3Page 61, Para No. 8Page No. 23, Para No. 6Page 63, Para No. 8Page No. 24 Para No. 7Page No. 64, Para No. 9Page No. 30, Para No. 17Page No. 71, Para No. 13Page No. 32, Para No. 19Page No. 71, Para No. 14Page No. 35, Para No. 25Page No. 72, Para No. 15Page No. 44, Para No. 47Page No. 73, Para No. 165.Learned advocate for the respondent has opposedthe grounds raised by petitioner. According to him, order passedby Labour Court is passed after taking into consideration theevidence produced by the parties. Therefore, the Industrial CourtBhagyawant Punde {5} 913-wp-5405-2016has not committed any error in concurring with the views andreasoning given by Labour Court. According to him, order passedby Industrial Court does not deserve any interference.6.After hearing the respective parties and goingthrough record, it is evident from the perusal of order passed byIndustrial Court that, Industrial Court has adopted cut, copypaste method while passing the judgment in revision. TheMember, Industrial Court has verbatim copied the reasoninggiven by Labour Court as it is. It can be discerned from theabove that Industrial Court has not applied its mind to thegrounds raised by the petitioner and without application of mindmerely copied the judgment of Labour Court. Though, petitionerhas raised specific grounds, however, those are not adverted towhile passing the impugned order. The cut, copy, paste methodadopted by the Industrial Court clearly reflects casual approach,non application of mind on the part of Industrial Court. Theorder, therefore, suffers from perversity and non application ofmind, which is clear from the observations which are made byIndustrial Court as well from the comparison which is given inthe tabular form herein above.7.While exercising revisional jurisdiction, the MemberBhagyawant Punde
Decision
{6} 913-wp-5405-2016of the Industrial Court is supposed to apply mind and thereafterrecord findings about correctness and validity of the orderpassed by Labour Court. It is apparent from the order thatIndustrial Court has failed to exercise jurisdiction conferred on it.Hence, on this ground alone, the order passed by IndustrialCourt deserves to be quashed and set aside.8.In the result, I proceed to pass following order:ORDER(i)Writ petition is allowed.(ii)Judgment and order dated 26.08.2015 passed by learnedMember, Industrial Court, Ahmednagar in Revision [IC] No.01/2014 is hereby quashed and set aside by remanding thematter back to the Industrial Court, Ahmednagar forhearing it afresh and to be decided by passing reasonedorder on its own merits.(iii)Parties are directed to appear before Industrial Court on24.03.2025 and Industrial Court shall make endeavor todecide the revision preferably within a period of six monthsthereafter.(iv)With the above directions, writ petition is disposed of. (MANJUSHA DESHPANDE, J.)Bhagyawant Punde