The central legal point established in the judgment is the requirement for specific and precise pleading and evidence to prove the violation of statutory provisions, and the court's discretion to grant compensation in lieu of reinstatement for workers out of employment for an extended period.

1. These petitions were admitted by order dated 25.8.2005 and this Court granted interim relief to the petitioner in terms of prayer clause (C), which reads as under:-

“(C) Pending hearing and final disposal of the Writ Petition, the impugned judgment and order dated 12.4.2005 passed by the learned Judge, II Labour Court, Ahmednagar in Reference (IDA) No.16 of 2001, may kindly be stayed.”

This relief has been identically sought in all the above mentioned petitions. The said relief was, therefore, granted to the petitioners in all these petitions.

2. The petitioners are the same in all these petitions. The respondents are identically placed workmen. Since a common issue and common point of law is involved, I have taken up all these petitions together for hearing.

3. By a common order, dated 10.7.2009, delivered by this Court in Civil Application No.452 of 2008 and connected Civil Applications, in which all these respondents were applicants, this Court has granted the benefit of Section 17B of the Industrial Disputes Act, 1947 to each of these respondents / workmen. The learned AGP appearing on behalf of the petitioners, categorically states that 12 respondents, out of the 16 in these group of cases, have received Rs.2,31,840/- till March 2015. The remaining four have received Rs.1,34,400/- since they attained the age of superannuation.

4. The learned AGP points out from paragraph No.4 of the order dated 10.7.2009, referred to above, that this Court had directed the petitioners to offer work on ad-hoc basis on any activity as per availability for a maximum period of 20 days in a month or pay daily wages for 20 days in a month in lieu of work. The learned AGP further submits that none of the respondents offered themselves for work and hence the petitioners have been paying them an amount of Rs.3,360/- per month in lieu of 20 days work in a month, as per the directions of this Court.

5. The petitioners submit that these respondents were offered work on daily wages as labourers as and when such work was available. To be precise, she indicates from page 66 of the petition paper book, which reflects the reference proceeding numbers, names of these respondents, and their period of service. For ready reference, the said chart, which was placed before the Labour Court is reproduced as under:-

Ref. IDA No. Name of 2nd Party. Period of Service Date of claiming Reinstatement, Continuity and back wages wef.

1 2 3 4

9/2001 Soma Lahanu Vayal 1-5-83 to 21-07-89 21-7-86

10/2001 Rama Laxman Bande 1-3-85 to 21-10-86 21-7-86

11/2001 Maruti Cindhu Bambere 1-2-83 to 21-10-86 21-10-86

12/2001 Shivram Bhau Kokate 1-1-83 to 21-10-86 21-10-86

13/2001 Ankush Bhau Bambere 1-1-83 to 21-10-86 21-10-86

14/2001 Navnath Rambhau Bambere 1-3-83 to 21-06-86 21-06-86

15/2001 Pandu Tukaram Bambere 1-1-84 to 31-10-86 31-10-86

16/2001 Pandurang Laxman

Vakchoure. 1-5-85 to 21-07-86 21-07-86

17/2001 Maruti Soma Bambere 1-1-83 to 21-07-86 21-07-86

18/2001 Kisan Cindhu Bambere 1-8-85 to 21-07-86 21-07-86

19/2001 Tukaram Soma Muthe 1-2-83 to 21-07-86 21-07-86

21/2001 Hari Lahanu Vayal 1-1-83 to 21-07-86 21-07-86

22/2001 Namdeo Ravji Jadhav 1-1-83 to 21-07-86 21-07-86

23/2001 Manchar Santu Bambere 1-2-84 to 21-07-86 21-07-86

24/2001 Ramesh Yadav Pawar 1-2-84 to 21-07-86 21-07-86

6. The learned AGP has then drawn my attention to the issues cast by the Labour Court, identically in every case, which read as under:-

ISSUES FINDINGS

1 Does the second party prove that his services were illegally terminated, without complying the provisions of Sec. 25 F, G & H and Rule 81 of I.D. Act ? Yes without compliance of Sec. 25 G and Rule 81 of I.D. Act.

2 Whether this court has jurisdiction to try the reference ? Yes

3 Does the first party prove that the demand of the second party has become stale due to lapse

of time ? No

4 Whether the second party is entitled to the relief as demanded in the reference ? Yes but as per Final order

5 What order ? As per final order.

7. She has then drawn my attention to the s