Advocates:
['M P JAISWAL', '', 'R S BHURE', 'UJJWALA ARUN PATIL', '', 'FOR/R']

1

wp4001.17.odt

IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY

NAGPUR BENCH, NAGPUR

WRIT PETITION NO. 4001/2017

Sahadeo s/o Maroti Jambhulkar .vs. Chief Engineer, Irrigatino Department,

Nagpur and anr.

_______________________________________________________________________

Office Notes, Office Memoranda of Coram,

appearances, Court'

s orders of directions

Court'

s or Judge'

s orders.

and Registrar'

s Orders.

Mrs. U. A. Patil, Advocate for respondents.

CORAM : V.M. DESHPANDE, J.

DATED : JANUARY 25, 2021

Learned counsel for petitioner is absent.

Respondents are represented by Mrs. U. A. Patil,

Petitioner was engaged as Driver on daily wages in

employment of Irrigation Department on CRTE with effect

from 21.01.1981 and confirmed in service with effect from

21.01.1986.

The petitioner was dismissed with effect from

30.01.1991 vide order dated 29.01.1991. The dismissal was

without issuing any show cause notice, charge-sheet or inquiry.

The petitioner filed complaint ULPA No.

451/1991, challenging his dismissal. The complaint was

resisted by employer-present respondents. The authorities

adduced evidence. After a full dress trial in Complaint ULPA

No.451/1991, learned 3^rd Labour Court, Nagpur on 13.10.2010

partly allowed the complaint thereby granting order of

reinstatement, however, without back wages.

The order of reinstatement was accepted by the

department. They did not challenge the said. However, the

petitioner, who was aggrieved by denial of back-wages,

approached to the Industrial Court by filing revision under

2

wp4001.17.odt

Section 44 of the Maharashtra Recognition of Trade Unions

and Prevention of Unfair Labour Practices Act. The revision

was registered as Revision ULPA No. 271/2011. The said

revision is dismissed by the learned Member of the Tribunal on

13.07.2016. Hence, this writ petition.

From the record, it is clear that the petitioner at

the time of filing of the complaint before the tribunal filed an

affidavit on record and in that he mentioned his occupation as

service.

Be that as it may, in view of the settled position of

law, it is for the employee to plead and prove that after

dismissal from service till his reinstatement by the Court of

law, the emplyee was not gainfully employed anywhere and

the initial burden rests on the shoulder of the employee. The

said burden, of course, shifts on the shoulder of employer if

initial burden about gainful employment is discharged by the

employee. The learned revisional Court found that the learned

Judge, Labour Court has rightly found that the petitioner did

not discharge the initial burden that he was not gainfully

employed anywhere.

In that view of the matter, orders passed by the

learned Judge, Labour Court and learned Member, Industrial

Tribunal denying the back wages warrant no interference. The

writ petition is, therefore, rejected.

JUDGE

kahale