Advocates:
['DHONGADE SURESH D', 'COPY SERVED ON GP', '', 'NAGARKAR KIRAN M', 'FOR R/SOLE']

1

IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE OF BOMBAY

BENCH AT AURANGABAD

WRIT PETITION NO.3926 OF 2013

1. THE EXECUTIVE ENGINEER,

MINOR IRRIGATION DIVISION,

OLD AUSA ROAD, LATUR,

2. THE EXECUTIVE ENGINEER,

MEDIUM PROJECT DIVISION, LATUR

PETITIONERS

VERSUS

MARATHWADA PATBANDHARE VA YANTRIKI

KAMGAR SANGHATNA,

NONDANI KRAMANK 1120, GODAWARI NIWAS,

OPP. SUTMIL, LATUR,

THROUGH GENERAL SECRETARY

RESPONDENT

Mr.S.D.Dhongade, Advocate for the petitioners.

Mr.K.M.Nagarkar, Advocate for the respondent.

( CORAM : RAVINDRA V. GHUGE, J.)

DATE : 06/07/2015

ORAL JUDGMENT :

1.

Rule. Rule made returnable forthwith and heard finally by

consent of the parties.

2.

The petitioners are aggrieved by the judgment and order dated

18/10/2012 delivered by the Labour Court, Latur in Appl. (IDA)

No.20/2001, which was filed by the respondent / Union u/s 33(C)(2)

of the Industrial Disputes Act, 1947.

khs/July 2015/3926-13 (d)

2

3.

Contention of Mr.Dhongde, learned Advocate for the petitioners

is that pursuant to the devastating earthquake that took place on

30/09/1993 affecting two areas known as Killari and Sastur in Dist.

Latur, the petitioners had deployed several workers in the

rehabilitation operation. He does not dispute that workers had

worked day in and day out in the said areas.

4.

He submits that as a recognition of the hard work done by

such employees, the State Government introduced a Government

Resolution dated 13/01/1997 vide which monetary incentive @ 20%

of the basic salary was to be paid to all such employees, who had

worked in the earthquake affected areas. The specific eligibility

criteria for payment of such incentive was that the employee must

have actually worked in the rescue operations in the earthquake

affected areas.

5.

The respondent Union had preferred Application (IDA)

NO.20/2001 invoking Section 33(C)(2) of the I.D.Act on behalf of

1097 members of the applicant /Union mentioned in the schedule.

The amounts claimed were also mentioned in the said Schedule.

khs/July 2015/3926-13 (d)

3

6.

Mr.Dhongde indicates from paragraph No.1 of the written

statement below Exh.C-5 filed before the Labour Court by the

petitioners that the concerned members of the respondent / Union

have never worked in the rescue/rehabilitation operations and were

never deployed for the same. Their claim for earthquake allowance

from 01/07/1994 till 31/12/1997 for 42 months was unsustainable.

He, therefore, submits that the conclusions of the Labour Court that

'because the petitioners did not produce any evidence, all the

members of the applicant / Union mentioned in the schedule are

entitled for earthquake allowance', is an unsustainable conclusion.

7.

Mr.Nagarkar, learned Advocate for the respondent / Union has

strenuously supported the impugned order. He submits that 1097

members mentioned in the schedule had worked from 01/07/1994

till 31/12/1997 for about 42 months. They are entitled for the

benefits of the Government Resolution. The petitioners have

extracted work from them. When the time came to make the

payments, the petitioners have turned away and are now making an

unsustainable claim that the persons mentioned in the schedule

before the Labour Court are not entitled for the earthquake

allowance.

khs/July 2015/3926-13 (d)

4

8.

He submits that this petition be dismissed and the petitioners

be directed to deposit the amount of Rs.1,01,94,398/- as is claimed

by the respondent/Union. He demands interest as is granted by the

Labour Court.

9.

I have gone through the petition paper book and the affidavit in

reply filed by the respondent with the assistance of the learned

Advocates. There is no dispute that the concerned Government

Resolution dated 13/01/1997 has introduced the earthquake

allowance. It is also not in dispute that the