Back
2017 Supreme(Bom) 1740
IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY BENCH AT NAGPUR
B.P. DHARMADHIKARI, SWAPNA S. JOSHI, JJ.
Conservator of Forest, North Division Forest, Chandrapur & Ors. - Appellants
Versus
Shri Umeshwar Keshav Kathwate & Anr. - Respondents
Letters Patent Appeal Nos. 380 & 381 of 2010 (Arising Out of Writ Petition Nos. 1039 of 2008 & 1278 of 2009)
Decided On : 27-11-2017
Advocate Appeared:
For the Respondents: Mr. A.R. Patil, Mr. V.P. Maldhure
The main legal point established is that the termination of employment and the calculation of compensation should be considered in light of relevant provisions and the circumstances of the case.
Headnote:
Forest Guard - Employment Termination - Maharashtra Recognition of Trade Unions and Prevention of Unfair Labour Practices Act, 1971 (Act No. I of 1972) - Section 28, Section 30, Item 1 of Schedule IV - Judgment discusses the validation of caste claim, physical examination requirements, termination of employment, interim relief, compensation, and the interpretation of 'industry' under the Act. The court also considers the provision for relaxation of height for Scheduled Tribe employees and the calculation of compensation.
Fact of the Case:
Umeshwar, a Forest Guard, was terminated due to not meeting the height requirement. He challenged the termination under the Maharashtra Recognition of Trade Unions and Prevention of Unfair Labour Practices Act, 1971. The Labour Court granted interim relief and later awarded compensation. The Industrial Court upheld the compensation but reduced the amount. The employer and Umeshwar filed separate writ petitions, leading to appeals and dismissals.
Finding of the Court:
The court found that the compensation awarded was not disproportionate or arbitrary considering the circumstances. It directed the employer to pay simple interest to Umeshwar from a specific date until realization of the compensation.
Issues: The issues involved the termination of employment, grant of compensation, interpretation of 'industry' under the Act, and the calculation of compensation.
Ratio Decidendi: The court held that the employee's termination was not justified, considering the provision for relaxation of height for Scheduled Tribe employees and the fact that the employee had been selected after an open competitive procedure. The court also found the compensation awarded to be reasonable.
Final Decision: The appeals were dismissed, and the employer was directed to pay simple interest to the employee from a specific date until realization of the compensation.
B.P. Dharmadhikari, J.
1. Nobody appears for appellants. Learned A.G.P. appears for respondent no.2. Mr. A.R. Patil, learned Advocate has appeared for respondent no.1/employee in both the matters.
2. Respondent Umeshwar was provided employment as Forest Guard by appellants in payscale of 2750-70-3800-75-4400 as per order of appointment dated 23.12.2003. He was selected because of his status as belonging to Nomadic Tribe (C). The appellant was temporary and adhoc. His caste claim was also validated by a competent committee on 14.1.2004.
3. It appears that he was sent for physical examination to find out his fitness for training and at that time it was found that he was not 163 cm. in height. His height was found to be only 160 cms.
4. At this stage, Mr. S.R. Deshpande, learned Counsel appears and informs that Forest Department has collected papers from him and they were to engage office of Government Pleader. He also informs that he has ceased to be a Panel Advocate.
5. Because of this outcome of physical examination, appellants found that respondent was not possessing requisite height and, therefore, could not have been selected as Forest Guard. He was, therefore, discontinued by order dated 29.1.2005.
6. Umeshwar challenged this termination in Complaint (ULP) No. 11/05 under Section 28 read with Section 30 and Item 1 of Schedule IV of the Maharashtra Recognition of Trade Unions and Prevention of Unfair Labour Practices Act, 1971 (hereinafter referred to as “Act No. I of 1972”). The Labour Court has granted him interim relief on 24.3.2005 and asked employer to reinstate him on his former post or then to pay him 90% of the wages per month.
7. Final judgment has been delivered in abovementioned Complaint (ULP) on 8.9.2006. The Labour Court has directed employer to pay back wages till 8.9.2006 and granted five years' salary as compensation.
8. This direction and judgment of Labour Court was questioned by employer by filing Revision (ULP) No. 60/06 under Section 44 of the Act No. I of 1972. Umeshwar also challenged it by filing Revision (ULP) No. 62/06. He sought relief of reinstatement with continuity.
9. The Member, Industrial Court, Chandrapur decided both the Revisions together by common order dated 10.1.2008. Industrial Court maintained order of Labour Court but brought down compensation to sum of Rs.1,50,000/- .
10. This common order was questioned by Umeshwar in Writ Petition No. 1039/08 and by appellant employer in Writ petition No. 1278/09.
11. Writ Petition No. 1039/08 was decided on 8.10.2008 by the learned Single Judge. The learned Single Judge maintained the relief of compensation of Rs.1,50,000/- awarded to Umeshwar and rejected his prayer for grant of reinstatement with continuity or back wages.
12. Employer (present appellant) filed Writ Petition No. 1278/09 after this adjudication on 20.2.2009. The other learned Single Judge of this Court has by judgment dated 8.9.2009 rejected the prayer of appointment and upheld grant of Rs.1,50,000/- as compensation to Umeshwar.
13. Employer has questioned these two separate judgments delivered by two learned Single Judges of this Court in these two Letters Patent Appeals.
14. Judgment in Writ Petition No. 1039/08 dated 8.10.2008 dismissing petition filed by Umeshwar forms subject matter of L.P.A. No. 380/10 while the other judgment dismissing Writ Petition of employer challenging grant of compensation to Umeshwar forms subject matter of L.P.A. No. 381/10.
15. Umeshwar has not challenged the adverse judgment delivered by the learned Single Judge dismissing his Writ Petition No. 1039/08. With the result, it is obvious that L.P.A. No. 380/10 filed by employer challenging dismissal of Writ Petition is unsustainable and not maintainable. It is, therefore, dismissed.
16. L.P.A. No. 381/10 challenges judgment delivered by other learned Single Judge in Writ Petition No. 1278/09. In this Writ Petition employer questioned compensation of Rs.1,50,000/- awarded by Industrial Court to Umeshwar.
