Back
2012 Supreme(Bom) 1079
High Court of Judicature at Bombay
ANOOP V. MOHTA, J.
The Executive Engineer & Another
Versus
S.P. Rokade & Others
Writ Petition Nos. 1850 of 1999, 1851 of 1999, 1855 of 1999, 1856 of 1999, 1857 of 1999, 1858 of 1999, 1860 of 1999, 1861 of 1999, 1871 of 1999, 1872 of 1999, 1874 of 1999, 1875 of 1999 & 1879 of 1999
Decided on : 20-06-2012
For the Petitioners: P.G. Sawant, AGP.
For the Respondents:K.S. Bapat, Advocate.
Headnote:Industrial Disputes Act, 1947 - Section 25-F - MRTUPULP Act, 1972, Schedule IV, Item 6 - Reinstatement.
Order of reinstatement, itself cannot mean that employee get permanency as concept of ’continuity in service’ cannot be equated with permanency. - The concept of "continuity of service" cannot be equated with the right of permanency, if termination is contrary to the provisions and without following the due procedure of law.
The order of reinstatement needs to follow, that itself in no way means the final decision of rights of permanency, if any. That itself cannot mean that the employees get permanency for all the time to come, basically in the facts and circumstances of the case.
Once the reinstatement and/or continuity of service is directed, the Department and/or employer, in a given case. still entitled to take action by following the procedure of law, so also the employees to claim permanency.
INDUSTRIAL DISPUTES ACT, 1947 - Section 25-F - MRTUPULP Act, Schedule 4, Item No. 6 - "Continuity of service" and "right to permanency". - Since concept of "continuity of service" cannot be equated with right of permanency hence order of reinstatement not amounts to final decision of rights of permanency.
Maharashtra Recognition of Trade Union and Prevention of Unfair Labour Practices Act, 1972 - Section 44 - Exercise of revisional jurisdiction by Industrial Court - Where relevant documents and material were inadmissible and wrongly accepted by Labour Court therefore Industrial Court in exercise of its revisional jurisdiction rightly held findings of Labour Court perverse and bad.
The Petitioners-Employers, the Executive Engineer, Public Works Department, Pune, through the State of Maharashtra have challenged the common order dated 18 January 1999 passed by the Industrial Court, Pune, thereby reversed the order passed by the Labour Court, Pune. The operative part of the common order is as under:
“ORDER
1. The Revision Applications 96 to 108 of 1998 are allowed.
2. The order passed by the Third Labour Court, Pune, in Complaints (ULP) Nos. 114 to 124, 129 and 130 of 1995 dt. 4-9-1998 is hereby quashed and set aside.
3. It is hereby declared that the respondent-department has committed unfair labour practice under Item 1 of Schedule IV of the Act in terminating the services of the complainants. Hence, the respondent-department is directed to cease and desist from indulging in such unfair labour practices.
4. The respondent-dept. is further directed to reinstate the complainants in their original posts with continuity of service, within one month from the date of this order and pay them 1/3rd backwages from the date of termination till the date of reinstatement.
5. No order as to costs.”
2 On 7 April 1999, this Court has admitted all the Writ Petitions. No interim relief was granted. This Court, on Civil Applications filed by the Petitioners, has passed the following order on 12 April 2001.
“P.C.
Heard learned Counsel. Civil Application disposed of in the following terms:
1. The order dated 18th January, 1999 passed by the Industrial Court, Pune, directing the reinstatement and backwages of the Respondent No.1 shall stand stayed subject to the following conditions:
(a) That the Petitioner shall deposit the wages of the Respondent No.1 at the rate of wages last drawn by him during the pendency of Writ Petition on month to month basis before the Industrial Court. The said amount on deposit shall be paid to the Respondent No.1 on the principle analoguous to Section 17B of the Industrial Disputes Act and the same shall not be recoverable.
(b) The petitioner shall make the aforesaid payment from the date of filing of the petition. The aforesaid shall be deposited within a period of 6 weeks from today. In case of default on the part of the petitioner to deposit the arrears of the payment as well as the amount mentioned in clause (a) above, the stay granted to reinstatement shall stand vacated in case of three clear defaults.
(c) The Respondent No.1 shall file an affidavit in this Court about his gainful employment/unemployment within a period of two week from today. The filing of the affidavit shall be condition precedent for granting benefits as contemplated under clauses (a) and (b) above.
Civil Application disposed of accordingly.
Parties/Authorities to act on an ordinary copy of this order duly authenticated by the Sheristedar/P.A. of this Court.”
3 A Division Bench of this Court by order dated 9 December 2003 did not entertain the Letters Patent Appeal against this order. The Petitioners did not raise further challenge to the said order passed by the Division Bench. The order dated 12 April 2001 therefore, has attained finality. Therefore, the amount so deposited and received by the Respondents, pursuant to the said order, are not recoverable now.
4 The learned Labour Court, while rejecting all 13 claims, held that the Petitioners-Respondents did not engage any unfair labour practice by orally terminating the services w.e.f. 10 February 1995. The Respondents, therefore, preferred the Revision Applications. All the Revision Applications arose out of common order, those were consolidated and ultimately after reconsidering the material on record, reversed the findings as recorded above. The Petitioners preferred separate Revisions. Considering the common facts and circumstances, points, material/evidence except different names of complainants, I am also inclined to dispose of the present group of matters by a common judgment.
5 Admittedly, the Complainants were employed orally at new Circ
