1
IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY:
NAGPUR BENCH: NAGPUR
WRIT PETITION NO.249 OF 2005
PETITIONER:
Ramdayal s/o Sukhram Gudewar, aged about 40 years,
occ : Nil, r/o Tirora, Tahsil Tirora, District : Gondia.
VERSUS
RESPONDENT:
The Principal, Industrial Training Institute, Tirora, Tahsil
Tirora, District : Gondia.
Advocate I.N. Choudhari, for petitioner
A.G.P. T.R. Kankale for respondents
===================================
CORAM: B.P. DHARMADHIKARI, J.
DATE: 6.10.2008
ORAL JUDGMENT
Heard Advocate Choudhari for petitioner and learned
A.G.P. for respondents.
Only argument of Advocate Choudhari is that though
Industrial Court in impugned order dated 20.9.2004 found
everything in favour of petitioner, it has remanded the matter back
to Labour Court to enable respondent/ employer to fill in lacuna.
He points out that Labour Court has in terms found that section 25-
F was complied with and therefore dismissed ULP Complaint filed
::: Downloaded on – 09/06/2013 13:56:44 :::
2
by the petitioner. Industrial Court did not agree with those findings
and found the story of employer about compliance with provisions
of Section 25-F to be incorrect. Still it has remanded the matter
back.
2] Learned A.G.P. in reply states that considering the
position of respondent as Government Officer, the Industrial Court
found it proper to enable to government to place necessary material
before Labour Court. He contends that it cannot be ignored that
petitioner was Daily Wager and in view of specific defence that
retrenchment notice was prepared and was sought to be served on
him on 1.8.2000, that amount of compensation was also kept ready,
learned Member of Industrial Court noticed that if these facts were
true, respondent did not examine its Accountant. According to him,
realising the difficulties which the government faces, Industrial
Court found it proper to give one more opportunity respondent to
lead proper evidence and this court should not interfere in writ
jurisdiction.
3] In the alternate learned A.G.P. relies upon Judgment
reported in 2008 Vol. 1 SCC 575 [ and (2006) 6 SCC Page
221[Reserve Bank of India ..vs.. Gopinath Sharma & another] to
urge that daily wager has no right to post and his termination does
not amount to retrenchment and as such even if there is technical
valuation of section 25-F that by itself is not sufficient to grant
employee the relief of reinstatement with continuity and back-
::: Downloaded on – 09/06/2013 13:56:44 :::
3
wages.
4] In facts before me it is not in dispute that the petitioner
was appointed on daily wages as per order dated 1.4.1998 and he
continued in service till his retrenchment on 1.8.2000. Petitioner
has stated that though the order of appointment is dated 4.1.1998
he was in service from 1.9.1997. Thus the service period of
petitioner even as per his contention is from 1.9.1997 to 4.9.2000
i.e. date on which he received retrenchment order. Said period is of
ab out 3 years. In view of the judgment of Hon. Apex Court in the
case of Government of Andhra Pradesh ..vs.. K. Brahmanandam &
others reported in 2008 Vol. 5 SCC 241 and also Telephone District
Manager & others ..vs.. Keshab Deb – 2008 LAB. I. C. 2615(S.C.)
and Jaipur Development Authority ..vs.. Ram Sahai and another –
2006 AIR SCW 5963. it is apparent that termination of services of a
daily wager does not amount to retrenchment and for violation of
section 25-F in such circumstances, the employee can not be given
benefit of reinstatement with continuity and back-wages. Hon. Apex
Court has held that in such circumstances employee is entitled to
benefit of compensation only. Therefore, even if argument of Mr.
Choudhari that Industrial Could not have permitted respondents to
fill in lacuna is accepted, I find that at the end of the trial in ULP
complaint the petitioner becomes entitled for grant of
compensation only. Considering the fact that his daily wage was
Rs.45/- roughly, it is clear that he was not earning more than
Rs.1400/- per month. He has put in about 3 years of service and
::: Downloaded on – 09/06/2013 13:56:44 :::
4
hence I find it proper to give him salary of one year as
compensation. Accordingly the petitioner be given compensation of
Rs.15000/-.
5] In view of this position, the order of Industrial Court
remanding the matter is quashed and set aside. Writ Petition is
partly allowed and petitioner is held entitled to and granted
compensation of Rs.15000/-. The amount be paid to him over and
above retrenchment compensation and notice pay if not already
received by him. Entire i.e. total amount be paid by 31.3.2009 and
if it is not so paid, he shall be entitled to recover the amount due to
him with 7% interest from today till realization. Rule accordingly.
No costs.
JUDGE
smp.
::: Downloaded on – 09/06/2013 13:56:44 :::