{"id":153482,"date":"2010-08-26T00:00:00","date_gmt":"2010-08-25T18:30:00","guid":{"rendered":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/birla-cotsyn-india-ltd-vs-tarachand-on-26-august-2010"},"modified":"2018-08-13T03:11:58","modified_gmt":"2018-08-12T21:41:58","slug":"birla-cotsyn-india-ltd-vs-tarachand-on-26-august-2010","status":"publish","type":"post","link":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/birla-cotsyn-india-ltd-vs-tarachand-on-26-august-2010","title":{"rendered":"Birla Cotsyn (India) Ltd vs Tarachand on 26 August, 2010"},"content":{"rendered":"
Bombay High Court<\/div>\n
Birla Cotsyn (India) Ltd vs Tarachand on 26 August, 2010<\/div>\n
Bench: B. P. Dharmadhikari<\/div>\n
                                      1\n\n\n\n\n                                                                        \n                                                \n             IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY\n                       NAGPUR BENCH, NAGPUR.\n\n\n\n\n                                               \n              WRIT PETITION  Nos. 5317, 5318 & 5319    OF 2009. \n\n\n\n\n                                    \n                                   .........\n                       \n    WRIT PETITION No. 5317\/2009.\n\n    Birla Cotsyn (India) Ltd.,\n                      \n    A-82, MIDC, Khamgaon, Tah. Khamgaon\n    District Buldhana, through its General\n    Manager (P&A), Shri O.B. Sharma,\n    r\/o. Khamgaon, Tah. Khamgaon,\n    District Buldhana.                                     ....PETITIONER.\n      \n   \n\n\n\n                                  VERSUS\n\n\n      1. Tarachand s\/o Chiranjilal Sharma,\n\n\n\n\n\n         Aged 53 years, R\/o. Smruti sadan,\n         Sarafa, Tahsil Khamgaon,\n         District Buldhana.\n\n      2. The Labour Court,\n\n\n\n\n\n         Deosingh Bhavan, Bhonde Sarkar\n         Chowk, Near General Hospital,\n         Buldhana.\n\n      3. The Member, Industrial Court,\n         Shrikant Super Market, APMC Road,\n         Near Rajkamal Talkies,\n         Akola.                                     ....RESPONDENTS\n                                                                   . \n\n                                   .........\n\n\n\n                                                ::: Downloaded on - 09\/06\/2013 16:19:58 :::\n                                      2\n\n\n\n\n                                                                      \n    WRIT PETITION No. 5318\/2009.\n\n\n\n\n                                              \n    Birla Cotsyn (India) Ltd.,\n    A-82, MIDC, Khamgaon, Tah. Khamgaon\n    District Buldhana, through its General\n\n\n\n\n                                             \n    Manager (P&A), Shri O.B. Sharma,\n    r\/o. Khamgaon, Tah. Khamgaon,\n    District Buldhana.                                   ....PETITIONER.\n\n\n\n\n                                    \n                                  VERSUS\n                       \n      1. Shatrughna s\/o Purnaji Bhise,\n         Aged 53 years, Residing Near Hanuman\n                      \n         Mandir, Gopal Nagar, at and post Khamgaon,\n         Tah. Khamgaon, District Buldhana.\n\n      2. The Labour Court,\n         Deosingh Bhavan, Bhonde Sarkar\n      \n\n\n         Chowk, Near General Hospital,\n         Buldhana.\n   \n\n\n\n      3. The Member, Industrial Court,\n         Shrikant Super Market, APMC Road,\n         Near Rajkamal Talkies,\n\n\n\n\n\n         Akola.                                   ....RESPONDENTS\n                                                                 . \n\n\n\n\n\n                                   .........\n\n    WRIT PETITION No. 5319\/2009.\n\n    Birla Cotsyn (India) Ltd.,\n    A-82, MIDC, Khamgaon, Tah. Khamgaon\n    District Buldhana, through its General\n    Manager (P&A), Shri O.B. Sharma,\n    r\/o. Khamgaon, Tah. Khamgaon,\n    District Buldhana.                                   ....PETITIONER.\n\n\n\n                                              ::: Downloaded on - 09\/06\/2013 16:19:58 :::\n                                         3\n\n\n\n\n                                                                          \n                                                  \n                                   VERSUS\n\n\n      1. Sawarmal s\/o Laluram Sharma,\n\n\n\n\n                                                 \n         Aged about 52 years, R\/o. Near \n         Natraj Garden Road, at  and Post\n         Khamgaon, Tah. Khamgaon,\n         District Buldhana.\n\n\n\n\n                                       \n      2. The Labour Court,\n                        \n         Deosingh Bhavan, Bhonde Sarkar\n         Chowk, Near General Hospital,\n         Buldhana.\n                       \n      3. The Member, Industrial Court,\n         Shrikant Super Market, APMC Road,\n         Near Rajkamal Talkies,\n         Akola.                                       ....RESPONDENTS\n                                                                     . \n      \n   \n\n\n\n                             -----------------------------------\n        Shri V.R. Thakur with Shri H.V. Thakur, Advocate for Petitioner.\n              Shri S.D. Thakur  with Shri P.S. Kshirsagar, Advocate \n\n\n\n\n\n                       for respondent no.1 in all petitions.\n           Learned AGP for respondent nos. 2 and 3 in all petitions.\n                            ------------------------------------\n\n\n\n\n\n                         CORAM :  B.P. DHARMADHIKARI,  J. \n<\/pre>\n
    Date of reserving the Judgment. -            4th August, 2010.\n    Date of Pronouncement.          -          26th August, 2010.\n\n               \n\n\n\n\n                                                  ::: Downloaded on - 09\/06\/2013 16:19:59 :::<\/span>\n                                                 4<\/span>\n\n\n\n\n                                                                                     \n    JUDGEMENT.   \n\n\n\n\n                                                            \n<\/pre>\n
    1.           Challenge in all this three writ petitions is to  identical orders <\/p>\n
    passed   by   Labour   Court   appeal   by   Industrial   Court   in   revisions.   All <\/p>\n
    complaints are under Section 28 of Maharashtra Recognition of Trade <\/p>\n
    Unions and Prevention of Unfair Labour Practices Act, 1971 (hereinafter <\/p>\n
    referred to as ULP Act).   Contention of Employer Petitioner in short in <\/p>\n
    all matters is Labour Court or Industrial Court could not have gone into <\/p>\n
    the question of disputed status of respective respondent no.1 in all these <\/p>\n
    Writ   Petitions   as   these   courts   under   Section   28   exercise   summary <\/p>\n
    jurisdiction.  Hence, only when relationship of employer and employee is <\/p>\n
    either   undisputed   or   indisputable,   the   jurisdiction   can   be   exercised.\n<\/p>\n
    Looking   to   the   nature   of   controversy   and   at   the   request   of   parties, <\/p>\n
    matters   have   been   heard   finally   at   admission   stage   by   making  Rule <\/p>\n
    returnable forthwith.\n<\/p>\n
                 I have heard Shri V.R. Thakur with Shri H.V. Thakur, learned <\/p>\n
    Counsel   for Employer\/Petitioner and Shri S.D. Thakur   with Shri P.S. <\/p>\n
    Kshirsagar, learned Counsel for respective respondent no.1. Learned AGP <\/p>\n
    has appeared for respondent nos. 2 and 3.\n<\/p>\n
    2.           Respondent   no.1   in   Writ   Petition   No.   5318\/2009   has   filed <\/p>\n
                                                             ::: Downloaded on – 09\/06\/2013 16:19:59 :::<\/span>
\n                                                 5<\/span><\/p>\n
    ULP   complaint   26\/2008   challenging   his   oral   termination   dated <\/p>\n
    22\/7\/2008   on     19\/8\/2008.       Petitioner   \/   Employer   filed   written <\/p>\n
    statement   and   also   an   application   at   Exhibit   -10   to   dismiss   that <\/p>\n
    complaint as not tenable stating that employee was working as finishing <\/p>\n
    supervisor\/shift-in- charge in managerial and administrative capacity at <\/p>\n
    the   time   of   his   termination.   Labour   Court   passed   an   order   on   this <\/p>\n
    objection   on   03.03.2009   and   framed   preliminary   issue   about <\/p>\n
    maintainability   of   complaint.     It   recorded   evidence   on   that   issue   and <\/p>\n
    passed   order   holding   complaint   to   be   maintainable.   It   held   that <\/p>\n
    employee was working in supervisory capacity but his basic pay was only <\/p>\n
    Rs. 5852\/- i.e. less than Rs. 6500\/- per month and hence, he did not go <\/p>\n
    out   of   definition   of   employee   as   given   in   Section   3   (13)   of   Bombay <\/p>\n
    Industrial   Relations   Act,   1947;   hereinafter   referred   to   as   BIR   Act.\n<\/p>\n
    Petitioner then challenged that order in revision under section 44 of ULP <\/p>\n
    Act   in   ULP   Revision   No.24\/2009.   On   12\/8\/2009   Industrial   Court <\/p>\n
    dismissed that revision. Labour Court thereafter on 6\/10\/2009 passed <\/p>\n
    order below Exhibit 2 and granted relief of interim reinstatement with <\/p>\n
    direction to pay 50% back wages from the date of termination till his <\/p>\n
    reinstatement . These orders dated 21\/4\/2009 and 6\/10\/2009 of Labour <\/p>\n
    Court and order dated 12\/8\/2009 of Industrial Court are questioned in <\/p>\n
    Writ   Petition   No.   5318\/2009.   Respondent   no.   1   in   Writ   Petition <\/p>\n
                                                             ::: Downloaded on – 09\/06\/2013 16:19:59 :::<\/span>
\n                                                 6<\/span><\/p>\n
    No.5317\/2009   filed   ULP   complaint   20\/2008   challenging   oral <\/p>\n
    termination on 23\/7\/2008. Similar type of application at Exhibit 16 to <\/p>\n
    dismiss his ULP complaint was preferred by Employer and on 3\/3\/2009, <\/p>\n
    Labour Court framed preliminary issue. After appreciating evidence of <\/p>\n
    parties, on the 21\/4\/2009 it rejected that application holding that there <\/p>\n
    was   no   evidence   that   duties   of   employee   were   either   managerial   or <\/p>\n
    supervisory and his basic pay was Rs. 5446\/- i.e. less than Rs. 6500\/- per <\/p>\n
    month. Employer challenge this  in ULP Revision  No. 25\/2009 and by <\/p>\n
    common judgment dated 12\/8\/2009 that revision came to be rejected.\n<\/p>\n
    Thereafter on 6\/10\/2009, Labour Court allowed prayer of employee for <\/p>\n
    interim   relief   and   directed   employer   to   reinstate   him   with   further <\/p>\n
    direction   to  pay  50%  back  wages   from   termination   till  reinstatement.\n<\/p>\n
    These three orders form subject matter of challenge in Writ Petition No. <\/p>\n
    5317\/2009. Respondent no. 1\/Employee in Writ Petition No. 5319\/2009 <\/p>\n
    filed ULP Complaint No.28\/2008 alleging oral termination on 1\/9\/2008.\n<\/p>\n
    Petitioner raised similar objection then by filing application at Exhibit 11 <\/p>\n
    and vide order dated 3\/3\/2009, Labour Court framed preliminary issue.\n<\/p>\n
    On   21\/4\/2009   it   passed   an   order   rejecting   application   at   Exhibit   11 <\/p>\n
    holding that employee was not performing administrative or supervisory <\/p>\n
    function.   It   also   found   that   his   basic   pay   was   Rs.   5754\/-   only.   ULP <\/p>\n
    Revision No. 24\/2009 preferred by Employer was dismissed by Industrial <\/p>\n
                                                              ::: Downloaded on – 09\/06\/2013 16:19:59 :::<\/span>
\n                                                7<\/span><\/p>\n
    Court   by   common   judgment   dated   12\/8\/2009   mentioned   above.\n<\/p>\n
    Thereafter   on   6\/10\/2009,   Labour   Coat   granted   employee   relief   of <\/p>\n
    interim reinstatement with further direction to pay him 50% back wages <\/p>\n
    from the date of termination till his reinstatement. These three orders <\/p>\n
    are challenge by Employer in Writ Petition No. 5319\/2009.\n<\/p>\n
    3.<\/p>\n
                 Shri V.R. Thakur, learned Counsel   for Employer\/Petitioner <\/p>\n
    has contended that basically three issues arise for determination in these <\/p>\n
    matters. Various judgments cited before Labour Court or Industrial Court <\/p>\n
    to show summary nature of its jurisdiction  have not been appreciated <\/p>\n
    correctly and hence, when status of respondent no.1 as employee is in <\/p>\n
    dispute, Courts could not have embarked upon enquiry to determine that <\/p>\n
    status. After noticing that the objection was not raised mala-fide, ULP <\/p>\n
    Complains ought to have been dismissed. His contention is presence of <\/p>\n
    independent contractor is not essential and restriction is upon power of <\/p>\n
    Court.     He   has   invited   attention   to   various   judgments   to   urge   that <\/p>\n
    finding   about  limited   jurisdiction   recorded  there   is   not  on   account   of <\/p>\n
    presence   of   contractor.   He   also   cited   some   precedents   where   similar <\/p>\n
    restriction is found even in absence of contractor.   In view of this line of <\/p>\n
    arguments, I find it appropriate to consider the same along with relevant <\/p>\n
    judgments . His next contention is “basic pay” as envisaged in section 3 <\/p>\n
                                                           ::: Downloaded on – 09\/06\/2013 16:19:59 :::<\/span>
\n                                                 8<\/span><\/p>\n
    (13)   of   BIR   Act   also   includes   contribution   to     provident   fund   by <\/p>\n
    employer   and   bonus   paid   every   year.   He   is   taking   support   from <\/p>\n
    definition   of   “wages”   in   Section   3   (39)   of   BIR   Act.   He   has   invited <\/p>\n
    attention to salary certificate dated 3\/3\/2009 of the respondent no.1 in <\/p>\n
    Writ Petition No. 5318\/2009 to show that if employers PF contribution <\/p>\n
    of Rs.702\/- and proportionate monthly bonus of Rs.825\/- is added to his <\/p>\n
    basic, it exceeds ceiling of Rs. 6500\/- and said respondent no.1 travels <\/p>\n
    out of definition of “employee”.\n<\/p>\n
    4.           Shri S.D. Thakur   with Shri P.S. Kshirsagar, learned Counsel <\/p>\n
    for   respective   respondent   no.1\/Employee   has   urged   that   arguments <\/p>\n
    being advanced or objection as raised is too technical and none of the <\/p>\n
    precedents   cited   before   this   Court   support   the   same.   According   to <\/p>\n
    learned Counsel Hon’ble Apex Court has nowhere laid down a law that <\/p>\n
    disputed issue of status cannot be resolved by Courts functioning under <\/p>\n
    ULP Act . He vociferously argued that  there is nothing  in ULP Act to <\/p>\n
    show that jurisdiction  exercised thereunder is   summary in nature. In <\/p>\n
    any   case,   according   to   him   controversy   stands   concluded   by   Division <\/p>\n
    Bench   judgment   of   this   Court   and   as   in   present   facts,   there   is   no <\/p>\n
    contractor,   learned   Single   Judge   cannot   take   any   other   view   and <\/p>\n
    impugned  orders   deserve   to  be   upheld.   He   has   invited   attention   to  a <\/p>\n
                                                             ::: Downloaded on – 09\/06\/2013 16:19:59 :::<\/span>
\n                                                  9<\/span><\/p>\n
    consideration of nature of duties by Labour Court to urge that issue of <\/p>\n
    “basic   pay”   is   totally   irrelevant.   He   has   also   cited   some   judgments   of <\/p>\n
    Hon’ble Apex Court to explain how the ratio in precedents  needs to be <\/p>\n
    deciphered and applied under Article 141. Judgment reported at 1994 <\/p>\n
    Mah.L.J.   1004   –   (Municipal   Corporation   of   City   of   Amraoti   vs.   Ashok <\/p>\n
    Ramkrishna Kamble)<\/a>  is relied upon by him to show meaning of phrase <\/p>\n
    “basic pay”. According to him, no allowance can be added to basic pay to <\/p>\n
    find out whether it exceeds ceiling limit.\n<\/p>\n
    5.           I find it appropriate first to consider the question of basic pay.\n<\/p>\n
    Both   learned   Counsel   have   taken   recourse   to   definition   of   wages   in <\/p>\n
    Section     3(39)   to   explain   it.   Section   3   (13)   of   Bombay   Industrial <\/p>\n
    Relations Act, 1946 defines employee as under: —\n<\/p>\n
                           “employee” means any person employed to do
\n                           any   skilled   or   unskilled   work   for   hire   or  <\/p>\n
                           reward in any industry, and includes —\n<\/p><\/blockquote>\n
                           (a) a person employed by a contractor to do
\n                           any   work   for   him   in   the   execution   of   a
\n                           contract   with   an   employer   within   the
\n                           meaning of sub-clause (e) of clause (14);\n<\/p><\/blockquote>\n
                           (b)   a   person   who   has   been   dismissed,
\n                           discharged   or   retrenched   or   whose   services  <\/p>\n
                                                               ::: Downloaded on – 09\/06\/2013 16:19:59 :::<\/span>
\n                                                            10<\/span><\/p>\n
                                 have   been   terminated   from   employment   on <\/p>\n
                                 account of any dispute relating to change in
\n                                 respect   of   which   notice   is   given   or   an
\n                                 application made under Section 42 whether <\/p>\n
                                 before   or   after   his   dismissal,   discharge,
\n                                 retrenchment   or,   as   the   case   may   be,
\n                                 termination from employment.\n<\/p><\/blockquote>\n
                                 but does not include —\n<\/p><\/blockquote>\n
                                 (i)   a   person   employed   primarily   in   the
\n                                 managerial,   administrative,   supervisory   or  <\/p>\n
                                 technical   capacity   drawing   basic   pay
\n                                 excluding allowances exceeding 6500 rupees
\n                                 per month:\n<\/p><\/blockquote>\n
                                 (ii)   any   other   person   or   class   of   persons  <\/p>\n
                                 employed   in   the   same   capacity   as   those
\n                                 specified in clause (i) above irrespective of the
\n                                 amount   of   the   pay   drawn   by   such   persons  <\/p>\n
                                 which   the   State   Government   may,   by
\n                                 notification in the official Gazette, specify in
\n                                 this behalf.<\/p><\/blockquote>\n
                     Other   relevant   definition   is   contained   in   subclause   (39)   of <\/p>\n
    Section 3 and it reads :-\n<\/p>\n
                       (39)   “wages”   means   remuneration   of   all   kinds
\n                       capable   of   being   expressed   in  terms   of   money   and
\n                       payable to an employee in respect of his employment  <\/p>\n
                                                                     ::: Downloaded on – 09\/06\/2013 16:19:59 :::<\/span>
\n                                                11<\/span><\/p>\n
                  or work done in such employment and includes —\n<\/p><\/blockquote>\n
                  (i)     any   bonus,   allowances   (including   dearness
\n                  allowance), reward or additional remuneration;\n<\/p><\/blockquote>\n
                  (ii)   the   value   of   any   house   accommodation,   light,  <\/p>\n
                  water,   medical   attendance   or   other   amenity   or
\n                  service;\n<\/p><\/blockquote>\n
                  (iii) any contribution by the employer to any pension <\/p>\n
                  or provident fund;\n<\/p><\/blockquote>\n
                  (iv)     any travelling allowance or the value of any  \n                  travelling concession;\n                            \n                  (v) any sum paid or payable to or on behalf of an  \n<\/pre>\n
                  employee to defray special expenses entailed on him
\n                  by the nature of his employment;\n<\/p><\/blockquote>\n
                  (vi) gratuity payable, if any.\n<\/p><\/blockquote>\n
    6.          Bare perusal of definition of wages above shows what is to be <\/p>\n
    included in it and not that that cannot be included. Its opening part uses <\/p>\n
    the word “means” and thus shows legislative intention of its exhaustive <\/p>\n
    nature. But then words therein give it a very wide sweep to cover all <\/p>\n
    entitlements of an employee. Despite this, it also uses the words “and <\/p>\n
    includes”   and   then   lists   various   other   payments   in   the   shape   of <\/p>\n
    reimbursement or concession or allowances. Contribution to pension or <\/p>\n
    provident fund and also payment of gratuity depends upon number of <\/p>\n
                                                             ::: Downloaded on – 09\/06\/2013 16:19:59 :::<\/span>
\n                                               12<\/span><\/p>\n
    employees   available   in   the   establishment   of   employer.   Hence,   that <\/p>\n
    payment may not be available where though employment is of a same <\/p>\n
    nature, number of employees is less or then because power i.e. electricity <\/p>\n
    is not used in manufacturing process. Similarly traveling allowance or <\/p>\n
    value of any traveling concession may not be a service condition in all <\/p>\n
    employments.   Payment   under   sub-clause   (v)   also   will   depend   upon <\/p>\n
    terms and conditions of contract which individual has or then upon the <\/p>\n
    nature   of   his   employment.   Reward   or   additional   remuneration   under <\/p>\n
    sub-clause   (i),   reimbursement   towards   accommodation,   light,   water <\/p>\n
    charges, medical attendance or other similar amenity or service is not a <\/p>\n
    uniform service condition everywhere and its quantum is bound to differ <\/p>\n
    from   employer   to   employer.   In   present   facts,   in   Writ   Petition   No. <\/p>\n
    5318\/2009, though there is a finding that respondent no. 1- S.P. Bhise is <\/p>\n
    working in supervisory capacity as his basic wage\/pay is found to be Rs.\n<\/p>\n
    5852\/– per month which is below the prescribed limit of Rs.6,500\/– per <\/p>\n
    month, he is held an “employee”. Effort of petitioner employer is to add <\/p>\n
    bonus of PF contribution so that his basic exceeds that limit. Submission <\/p>\n
    is to construe phrase “basic pay” in the light of definition of “wages” and <\/p>\n
    to   add   the   allowances   or   reimbursement   or   concession   falling   in   its <\/p>\n
    inclusive   portion.   It   is   apparent   that   such   an   interpretation   is   not <\/p>\n
    available because it then defeats the legislative intention in using both <\/p>\n
                                                            ::: Downloaded on – 09\/06\/2013 16:19:59 :::<\/span>
\n                                                13<\/span><\/p>\n
    words like “means” and “includes” in Section 3 (39) of the BRA Act. This <\/p>\n
    interpretation   introduces   different   concept   for   examining   whether   a <\/p>\n
    person is or is not an employee in different establishments depending <\/p>\n
    upon his service conditions in that regard. A person showered with any <\/p>\n
    allowance or concession may cross the prescribed limit and therefore will <\/p>\n
    fall outside that definition while with other employer, he may qualify to <\/p>\n
    be   an   employee.   This   will   thus   permit   employers   to   manipulate   said <\/p>\n
    status   and   importance   given   to   nature   of   duties   will   be   lost.   The <\/p>\n
    paramount consideration in Section 3 (13) is to nature of duties and not <\/p>\n
    to   total   wages.   Word   “basic   pay”   has   been   used   deliberately   there   to <\/p>\n
    indicate the fixed portion falling in substantive part of Section 3 (39) <\/p>\n
    specified by using the word “means” is only intended to be covered and <\/p>\n
    to ignore its variable part. This puts it beyond doubt that all contractual <\/p>\n
    and   statutory   amounts   payable   on   account   of   work   done   are   not <\/p>\n
    contemplated under it. Otherwise, there was no point in using different <\/p>\n
    words   and   same   word   “wages”   could   have   been   employed   in   Section <\/p>\n
    3(13) also. Even word “basic wages” has not been used there. Basic pay <\/p>\n
    always is understood as that part of total wage left after excluding all <\/p>\n
    such variables like dearness allowance, over time, any reimbursement or <\/p>\n
    concession etc. If the quantum of any such variable payment in the shape <\/p>\n
    of   allowance   or   reimbursement   or   concession   is   added,   use   of   word <\/p>\n
                                                             ::: Downloaded on – 09\/06\/2013 16:19:59 :::<\/span>
\n                                                 14<\/span><\/p>\n
    “basic”   stands   defeated.   Word   basic   has   been   employed   to   indicate <\/p>\n
    original remuneration shown of all these additions which may be as per <\/p>\n
    contract   or   as   per   law   on   the   point.   Language   in   substantive   Section <\/p>\n
    3(39) is very wide because it is designed to meet a different contingency.\n<\/p>\n
    Same meaning to “basic  pay” in scheme of Section 3 (13) of BIR Act <\/p>\n
    militates not only with that scheme but also with intention in Section 3 <\/p>\n
    (13)   itself.   Different   norms   cannot   be   applied   to   find   out   whether <\/p>\n
    particular person is or is not an “employee” and primacy has to be given <\/p>\n
    to nature of his duties. Legislature has made managerial, administrative, <\/p>\n
    supervisory or technical work relevant only when it forms primary duty <\/p>\n
    of such person and it is coupled with further requirement of excluding <\/p>\n
    allowances. Words employed “drawing basic pay excluding allowances”\n<\/p>\n
    clearly   mandate   elimination   of   all   allowances   from   consideration   and <\/p>\n
    said   allowances   find   mention   in   inclusive   part   of   Section   3   (39).\n<\/p>\n
    Legislation has attempted to apply one standard of earning on uniform <\/p>\n
    basis   for   all   such   employees.     Contention   that   payment   of   bonus   or <\/p>\n
    contribution  of  employer   to   PF  or   pension   fund  or   gratuity  is   not  an <\/p>\n
    allowance   and   must   be   treated   as   part   of   “basic   pay”   also   cannot   be <\/p>\n
    accepted looking to the spirit of both provisions. The use of words ” pay”\n<\/p>\n
    or “wages” in the matter is not to indicate any different yardsticks and it <\/p>\n
    is word “basic” qualifying the word “pay” which is decisive. It is also clear <\/p>\n
                                                              ::: Downloaded on – 09\/06\/2013 16:19:59 :::<\/span>
\n                                                 15<\/span><\/p>\n
    that    words   “basic   pay”    in   Section     3  (13)   can   be   and     need  to   be <\/p>\n
    construed in the light of Section  3(39) of BIR Act itself.\n<\/p>\n
    7.           Perusal of judgment of Learned Single Judge of this Court in <\/p>\n
    Municipal Corporation of City of Amraoti vs Ashok Ramkrishna Kamble<\/a> <\/p>\n
    (supra) shows that there the employee was working as junior engineer <\/p>\n
    on   the   wages   of   Rs   72\/-.     He   was   an   engineering   graduate.     In   this <\/p>\n
    background it has been found that a person who is being paid meagre <\/p>\n
    salary   even   if   he’s   doing     managerial,   administrative,   supervisory   or <\/p>\n
    technical   work   is   extended   the   protection   and   the   words   “basic   pay <\/p>\n
    excluding   allowances”   need   to   be   interpreted   with   this   idea   in   mind.\n<\/p>\n
    Dictionary   meaning   of   “pay”   from   concise  Oxford   dictionary   has   been <\/p>\n
    looked into and similarly meaning of word “basic” from said dictionary is <\/p>\n
    also noticed.  Basic has been found to mean simplest or lowest pay and <\/p>\n
    in case of respondent therein it is found to exceed Rs 1000\/- per month –\n<\/p>\n
    a ceiling limit then in force.   Hence it was concluded that respondent <\/p>\n
    was pushed out of protective zone of enactment.  Rate of Rs 72\/- per day <\/p>\n
    was without any allowances and finding reached is on that basis.  Here, <\/p>\n
    respondent no. 1 is not receiving basic pay in excess of Rs 6500\/- per <\/p>\n
    month and payments like employers’ share of provident fund or bonus or <\/p>\n
    gratuity cannot be added to it.  I, therefore, do not find anything wrong <\/p>\n
                                                              ::: Downloaded on – 09\/06\/2013 16:19:59 :::<\/span>
\n                                                 16<\/span><\/p>\n
    with application of mind by Labour Court in U.L.P. complaint filed by <\/p>\n
    S.P. Bhise ie. respondent no.1 in Writ  Petition No. 5318\/2009.\n<\/p>\n
                 In remaining 2 petitions, controversy pales into insignificance <\/p>\n
    as   duties   of   respective   respondent   no.1   therein   are   not   found   to   be <\/p>\n
    managerial, administrative, supervisory or technical in nature.  Ceiling of <\/p>\n
    Rs   6500\/-   per   month   is   therefore   irrelevant   in   their   matters.     It   is <\/p>\n
    important to note that findings on fact in this respect about nature of <\/p>\n
    duties are not disputed by respective Counsel in any of 3 writ petitions.\n<\/p>\n
    8.           The   question   about   absence   of   jurisdiction   needs   to   be <\/p>\n
    addressed in the light of various pronouncements by this Court and by <\/p>\n
    Hon’ble   Apex Court.   To avoid prolixity and reiteration, I will like to <\/p>\n
    refer to recent judgment of this Court.  Various judgments were required <\/p>\n
    to   be   considered   by   me   in   2006   (3)   All   M.R.   552–   (Maharashtra <\/p>\n
    Industrial   Development   Corporation   vs   Member   Industrial   Court)  and<\/a> <\/p>\n
    more recently in case of  Bhaskar Vaidya vs. Member, Industrial Court<\/a> <\/p>\n
    reported at 2010 (3) Mh.L.J. 349.  Recent judgment of Division Bench of <\/p>\n
    this Court is reported at 2008 (1) LLJ 271–(Sarva Shramik Sangha vs. <\/p>\n
    Janprabha   Offset   Works).  Division   Bench<\/a>   found   that   U.L.P.   complaint <\/p>\n
    filed by union was on behalf of of employees in printing presses who <\/p>\n
                                                              ::: Downloaded on – 09\/06\/2013 16:19:59 :::<\/span>
\n                                                17<\/span><\/p>\n
    were claiming wages equal to employees in newspaper establishment.\n<\/p>\n
    Plea   was   printing   presses   and   newspaper   were   part   of   same <\/p>\n
    establishment and Industrial Court after denial in this respect by both <\/p>\n
    establishments   framed  an   issue   and  held  that  they   were  not  separate <\/p>\n
    establishments.     Single   Judge   held   that   Industrial   Court   had   no <\/p>\n
    jurisdiction to entertain U.L.P. complaint raising such dispute.   Various <\/p>\n
    judgments on which both Counsel have relied before me were pressed in <\/p>\n
    the   service   even   in   that   matter   and   in   paragraph   13,   Division   Bench <\/p>\n
    proceeded to decide issue about jurisdiction.   In paragraph 15 request <\/p>\n
    made   to   Hon’ble   Apex   Court   in  Sarva   Shramik   Sangha   vs.     Indian <\/p>\n
    Smelting   &   Refining   Co   Ltd   and   others  (A.I.R.<\/a>   2004   SC   269)   to <\/p>\n
    reconsider its earlier view by constituting a larger Bench and its rejection <\/p>\n
    is   also   noticed.     In   paragraph   16,   Division   Bench     found   that   when <\/p>\n
    relationship is in dispute, Labour or Industrial Court has no jurisdiction <\/p>\n
    to record a finding in that respect.   It is apparent that no contractor is <\/p>\n
    placed in said matter between employee and the employer, but ultimate <\/p>\n
    relationship   is   being   traced   to   newspaper   establishment   through <\/p>\n
    immediate   employer   i.e.   printing   press.     This   judgment   has   been <\/p>\n
    considered   by   me   in   Bhaskar   Vaidya   vs.   Member,   Industrial   Court<\/a> <\/p>\n
    (supra).  There employment with Sports Academy (public employment) <\/p>\n
    was   alleged   contending   that   employee\/he   was   employee   of   a   private <\/p>\n
                                                             ::: Downloaded on – 09\/06\/2013 16:19:59 :::<\/span>
\n                                                18<\/span><\/p>\n
    body and   was orally asked for option to start work in sports academy <\/p>\n
    and     accordingly,   employee   claimed   that   he   had   started   work.     His <\/p>\n
    grievance was, he received only meagre amount as honorarium that too <\/p>\n
    through   the   private   body.     Consideration   there   shows   that   this   Court <\/p>\n
    noticed   absence   of   contractor   but   then   found   some   arrangement <\/p>\n
    between   private   body   and   sports   academy   under   which   5   employees <\/p>\n
    were made available on loan by private body to latter and in view of <\/p>\n
    other   facts   on   record   there,   absence   of   direct   relationship   was   also <\/p>\n
    noticed.   Even   in   Maharashtra   Industrial   Development   Corporation   vs <\/p>\n
    Member   Industrial   Court<\/a>   (supra),   I,   have   considered   in   detail   all <\/p>\n
    precedents   and   judgment   of   Hon’ble   Apex   Court   in   Sarva   Shramik <\/p>\n
    Sangha  vs. Indian  Smelting   & Refining   Co Ltd  and others<\/a>  (others)  in <\/p>\n
    paragraph 9G, where observations of Hon’ble  Apex Court in para 21 are <\/p>\n
    extracted  and relied  upon.   The  extent  to  which  Labour  or  Industrial <\/p>\n
    Court can go is examined therein.   It has been noticed that employee <\/p>\n
    there   nowhere   asserted   in   his   U.L.P.  complaint   that   he   was   receiving <\/p>\n
    wages   from   M.I.D.C.   and   he   was   contending   that   M.I.D.C.   was   his <\/p>\n
    principal employer.   He thus did not plead any direct relationship and <\/p>\n
    only pointed out that his name appeared in the logbook of vehicle as <\/p>\n
    driver.     Employer   had   pleaded   that   employee   had   worked   as   driver <\/p>\n
    under various contractors on rate list basis.  Consideration in paragraph <\/p>\n
                                                            ::: Downloaded on – 09\/06\/2013 16:19:59 :::<\/span>
\n                                                19<\/span><\/p>\n
    11 shows various facts looked into by this Court to note that relationship <\/p>\n
    was neither undisputed nor indisputable.  It is therefore obvious that in <\/p>\n
    absence   of   direct   relationship,   same   was   sought   to   be   pleaded   and <\/p>\n
    proved in that matter.  Several judgments on which petitioner has placed <\/p>\n
    reliance are looked into in above judgments either by me or by Division <\/p>\n
    Bench.     I,   therefore,   do   not   find   it   necessary   to   again   individually <\/p>\n
    mention or consider the same here.\n<\/p>\n
    9.           Shri  V.R. Thakur, learned counsel  has attempted to draw a <\/p>\n
    line of distinction by contending that law as settled by Hon’ble   Apex <\/p>\n
    Court or then by Division Bench of this Court does not lay down that <\/p>\n
    only when contractor exists, the relationship can be said to be in dispute.\n<\/p>\n
    Shri  S.D. Thakur, learned counsel  has gone a step further to urge that <\/p>\n
    appreciation of controversy   by Hon’ble   Apex Court in Sarva Shramik <\/p>\n
    Sangha vs.  Indian Smelting & Refining Co Ltd and others<\/a> (supra) and all <\/p>\n
    earlier matters is itself vitiated as it does not consider relevant provisions <\/p>\n
    of U.L.P. Act.   He has invited attention to judgment of Hon’ble   Apex <\/p>\n
    Court   reported   at   (1995)   3   SCC   78   —   AIR   1995   S.C.   1137   (Shramik <\/p>\n
    Utkarsh Sabha v. Raymond Woollen Mills Ltd.)<\/a>  to urge that U.L.P. Act <\/p>\n
    and  BIR Act are complementary to each other and jurisdiction of either <\/p>\n
    Labour   Court   or   Industrial   Court   under   U.L.P.   Act   has   been   wrongly <\/p>\n
                                                             ::: Downloaded on – 09\/06\/2013 16:19:59 :::<\/span>
\n                                              20<\/span><\/p>\n
    construed to be summary in nature.  Hon’ble  Apex Court has held that <\/p>\n
    the B.I.R. Act was enacted to provide for the regulation of the relation of <\/p>\n
    employers   and   employees   in   certain   matters   and   to   consolidate   and <\/p>\n
    amend the law in relation to the settlement of industrial disputes. The <\/p>\n
    U.L.P. Act was enacted to provide for the recognition of trade unions for <\/p>\n
    facilitating collective bargaining for certain undertakings; to state their <\/p>\n
    rights and obligations; to confer certain powers on unrecognized unions;\n<\/p>\n
    and to define and provide for the prevention of unfair labour practices;\n<\/p>\n
    and to constitute courts in this behalf. It cannot, therefore, be said that <\/p>\n
    the   B.I.R.   Act   and   the   U.L.P.   Act   operate   in   different   fields.   A <\/p>\n
    commonality in  their  objects  and their  provisions  is found by Hon’ble <\/p>\n
    Apex Court. The obvious intent of the legislature which enacted them <\/p>\n
    was that they should operate in tandem and complement each other in <\/p>\n
    respect of industries to which the B.I.R. Act had been made applicable.\n<\/p>\n
    Hence Hon’ble   Apex Court stated that the two statutes must be read <\/p>\n
    together.     I do not find anything in these observations which militates <\/p>\n
    with conclusions by Hon’ble   Apex Court in Sarva Shramik Sangha vs. <\/p>\n
    Indian   Smelting   &   Refining   Co   Ltd   and   others<\/a>   (supra).     In   latter <\/p>\n
    judgment, in paragraph 23 Hon’ble   Apex Court has also given reasons <\/p>\n
    for arriving at a particular construction.   In paragraph 24, it is further <\/p>\n
    pointed out that even if 2 forums are presumed to be available, the Court <\/p>\n
                                                           ::: Downloaded on – 09\/06\/2013 16:19:59 :::<\/span>
\n                                                21<\/span><\/p>\n
    can   always   state   which   is   more   appropriate   forum   to   have   effective <\/p>\n
    adjudication.  In view of this law, I do not find any merit in contentions <\/p>\n
    of respondent no. 1 and judgments relied upon by Shri S.D. Thakur like <\/p>\n
    (2008)   1   SCC   494   –   (Sarva   Shramik   Sanghatana   (KV)   v.   State   of <\/p>\n
    Maharashtra)    and<\/a> (2010) 5 SCC 513– (V. Kishan Rao v. Nikhil Super <\/p>\n
    Speciality Hospital),<\/a>  to explain how the binding nature of a precedent is <\/p>\n
    to   be   appreciated   or   understood,   need   not   be   gone   into.   Shri     V.R.\n<\/p>\n
    Thakur,   learned   counsel     has   attempted   to   show   that   Division   Bench <\/p>\n
    view of this Court in Fulchand Baburao Gedam vs. Lokmat Newspapers <\/p>\n
    Ltd. reported at 2007 III CLR 619 that U.L.P. complaint is maintainable <\/p>\n
    when   issue   of   contract   Labour   is   not   involved   either   directly   or <\/p>\n
    indirectly, is also not correct.   There the defence of employer was that <\/p>\n
    employees were engaged by some of the officers for their personal work <\/p>\n
    and   were   attending   to   their   requirements   and   might   be   visiting   the <\/p>\n
    establishment of employer for that purpose.   The facts therefore show <\/p>\n
    that   no   relationship   was   being   shown   with   any   third   employer   over <\/p>\n
    whom newspaper had no control and defence was of employment with <\/p>\n
    some   officers   who   were   themselves   in   employment   of   respondent <\/p>\n
    newspaper.  I do not find anything even in said judgment to assist cause <\/p>\n
    of petitioner even indirectly.   Division Bench there has also considered <\/p>\n
    several judgments and SLP against said view is also dismissed in motion <\/p>\n
                                                             ::: Downloaded on – 09\/06\/2013 16:19:59 :::<\/span>
\n                                             22<\/span><\/p>\n
    by Hon’ble Apex Court.  It is settled law that principle of merger is not <\/p>\n
    attracted and such dismissal does not tantamount to declaration of law <\/p>\n
    by Hon’ble Apex Court to constitute it in binding precedent.   However <\/p>\n
    developments in field of law need to be noticed in the background of all <\/p>\n
    earlier   judgments.   In   present   matters,   neither   Labour   Court   nor <\/p>\n
    Industrial   Court   has   rejected   preliminary   objection   of <\/p>\n
    Petitioner\/Employer because there is no intervention of an independent <\/p>\n
    contractor. I therefore, do not find it necessary to delve more into said <\/p>\n
    controversy here.\n<\/p>\n
    10.         All   the   judgments   referred   to   above   clearly   contemplate <\/p>\n
    undisputed   or   indisputable   relationship   between   contesting   parties   to <\/p>\n
    enable Labour Court or Industrial Court to exercise jurisdiction  under <\/p>\n
    U.L.P. Act.  Once relationship is accepted, contention that said Court can <\/p>\n
    not examine nature of duties of such complainant employee or his status <\/p>\n
    cannot be accepted.  In present matters, only dispute is about nature of <\/p>\n
    duties   and petitioner   has  accepted master — servant  relationship   with <\/p>\n
    respective respondent no.1.  Acceptance of that relationship itself confers <\/p>\n
    jurisdiction   even   on   courts   functioning   under   U.L.P.   Act   to   take <\/p>\n
    cognizance.  Whether such “servant” fits into the definition of “employee”\n<\/p>\n
    is a secondary question which can then be gone into by those courts in <\/p>\n
                                                         ::: Downloaded on – 09\/06\/2013 16:19:59 :::<\/span>
\n                                               23<\/span><\/p>\n
    the light of law as settled. I find reliance by petitioner upon observations <\/p>\n
    in   paragraph   24   of   Hon’ble   Apex  Court  in   Sarva   Shramik   Sangha   vs. <\/p>\n
    Indian Smelting & Refining Co Ltd and others<\/a> (supra) is misconceived in <\/p>\n
    present facts.\n<\/p>\n
                 Judgment of learned Single Judge of this  Court in 2009(6) <\/p>\n
    Mh.L.J.   212   —   (Vidyut   Metallics   Pvt.   Ltd.   vs.   Maharashtra   Rajya <\/p>\n
    Rashtriya Kamgar Sangh)   considers the issue of maintainability of civil <\/p>\n
    suit against union seeking recovery of damages for loss of business and <\/p>\n
    notes   that   courts   functioning   under   U.L.P.   Act   do   not   possess   such <\/p>\n
    jurisdiction.     This   judgment   cannot   be   interpreted   to   state   that   even <\/p>\n
    status of servant as an employee cannot be gone into by said courts.\n<\/p>\n
                 (2005) 12 SCC 433- (Oswal Petrochemicals vs Government of <\/p>\n
    Maharashtra)<\/a> only follows settled law and does not advance the stand of <\/p>\n
    petitioner.\n<\/p>\n
                 2004 III CLR 530- (Quadricon Pvt. Ltd vs Maxi D’Souza and<\/a> <\/p>\n
    other)  is   the   Division   Bench   judgment   of   this   Court   where   in   matter <\/p>\n
    came   to   be   remanded   back   to   Industrial   Court   to   find   out   whether <\/p>\n
    relationship was undisputed or indisputable.\n<\/p>\n
                                                            ::: Downloaded on – 09\/06\/2013 16:19:59 :::<\/span>
\n                                                24<\/span><\/p>\n
                 Facts in 2005 I CLR 658 — (Maharashtra Engineering Plastics <\/p>\n
    and General vs Little Kids and others) show that a stranger in the shape <\/p>\n
    of respondent 3 was joined as party in U.L.P. complaint and respondent <\/p>\n
    nos. 1 and 2 had no relation or connection with it.   Respondents no.1 <\/p>\n
    and   2   had   pointed   out   that   they   had   engaged   eight   employees   and <\/p>\n
    complainants were not in their employment.  In 2006 II CLR 815– (ICICI <\/p>\n
    Bank   Ltd   vs   Narendra   R.   Parmar),   services   were   terminated   by   a <\/p>\n
    subsidiary   company   and   in   U.L.P.   complaint   Bank   as   also   its   that <\/p>\n
    subsidiary were joined as parties.   In 2007 III CLR 982– (Maharashtra <\/p>\n
    State Cooperative Cotton Growers Marketing Federation vs Asha Josef <\/p>\n
    D’mello),<\/a> it was shown to learned Single Judge of this Court that witness <\/p>\n
    for petitioner never admitted that respondents were appointed in clear <\/p>\n
    post and legal relationship between parties was in dispute.   However, <\/p>\n
    this   Court   only   noticed   that   Industrial   Court   has   ignored   the   limited <\/p>\n
    jurisdiction   available   to  it   and   did  not  record  any  final   finding   about <\/p>\n
    absence   of   jurisdiction.     Challenge   to   termination   was   allowed   to   be <\/p>\n
    prosecuted by employee before Labour Court in accordance with  law.\n<\/p>\n
    None of the judgments therefore come to the rescue of present employer <\/p>\n
    in   these   writ   petitions.     After   the   relationship   is   accepted,   Court <\/p>\n
    functioning under U.L.P. Act can examine nature of duties and find out <\/p>\n
                                                             ::: Downloaded on – 09\/06\/2013 16:19:59 :::<\/span>
\n                                              25<\/span><\/p>\n
    basic   pay   to   note   whether   provisions   of   welfare   legislation   can   be <\/p>\n
    extended to Complainant before it.\n<\/p>\n
    11.         U.L.P.   Act   deals   with   various   unfair   labour   practices   and <\/p>\n
    while recording of finding in relation to several of them, examination of <\/p>\n
    nature  of  duties  of complainant becomes relevant.   While finding out <\/p>\n
    whether transfer of complainant is to an equivalent post, whether there <\/p>\n
    is unmerited promotion or reversion or then any reduction  in rank or <\/p>\n
    undue   favour   to   any   employee,   victimization   etc.   such   questions <\/p>\n
    frequently arise.   It cannot be accepted that Labour Court or Industrial <\/p>\n
    Court can record evidence & deliver a finding about such equivalence or <\/p>\n
    its absence at that stage and same exercise cannot be undertaken only <\/p>\n
    because   status   of   said   Complainant   employee   is   being   assailed   by <\/p>\n
    pointing   out   that   his   work   is   primarily   of   managerial,   supervisory, <\/p>\n
    administrative  or technical  type.   Only when there is  genuine dispute <\/p>\n
    about   existence   of   employer-employee   relationship   which   includes <\/p>\n
    master-servant relationship,  the   summary jurisdiction  prohibits  further <\/p>\n
    inquiry.  Here, petitioner has not even attempted to point out why and <\/p>\n
    how   alleged   dispute   in   relation   to   nature   of   duties   performed   by <\/p>\n
    respective respondent no.1 in Writ   Petition Nos. 5317 and 5319\/2009 <\/p>\n
    can be labeled as genuine and bonafide.   It is not in dispute that their <\/p>\n
                                                           ::: Downloaded on – 09\/06\/2013 16:19:59 :::<\/span>
\n                                               26<\/span><\/p>\n
    basic pay does not exceed Rs 6500\/– per month.  In case of respondent <\/p>\n
    no. 1 in Writ  Petition No. 5318\/2009, finding reached by Courts below <\/p>\n
    is though he does work  supervisory in nature, his basic pay is less than <\/p>\n
    Rs 6500\/–.  Question whether amount of PF contribution, bonus can be <\/p>\n
    added to basic pay to find out whether it exceeds Rs 6500\/– is already <\/p>\n
    answered against petitioner above. No specific arguments as to  why this <\/p>\n
    question cannot be answered by Courts functioning under U.L.P. Act has <\/p>\n
    been advanced.  I find that a misconceived objection has been raised by <\/p>\n
    petitioners   and  inquiry  into  status   of   complainant  before  it  by  Courts <\/p>\n
    under U.L.P. Act cannot be equated with inquiry undertaken by it to find <\/p>\n
    out  whether  relationship   is  undisputed  or  indisputable  in   the  light  of <\/p>\n
    various   judgments.     Inquiry   into   relationship   is   an   inquiry   into   fact <\/p>\n
    whether   it   possesses   necessary   jurisdiction.     Inquiry   into   status   of <\/p>\n
    complainant stands on altogether different pedestal and therein Court’s <\/p>\n
    jurisdiction to grant relief is not being scrutinized. In a given case, there <\/p>\n
    may be more than one complainant before such Court and one or more <\/p>\n
    of   them   may   be   found   to   possesses   status   necessary   to   invoke   the <\/p>\n
    jurisdiction of Court under U.L.P. Act. Entitlement of such complainant <\/p>\n
    to such relief is under scanner here and hence, this inquiry cannot be <\/p>\n
    equated   with   inquiry   about   its   jurisdiction   in   case   of   disputed <\/p>\n
    relationship.   Inquiry   into   its   own   competence   by   such   Court   and   an <\/p>\n
                                                            ::: Downloaded on – 09\/06\/2013 16:19:59 :::<\/span>
\n                                                  27<\/span><\/p>\n
    inquiry into entitlement of the complainant in U.L.P. complaint cannot <\/p>\n
    be   confused   together.   In   summary   jurisdiction   also   objection   to   such <\/p>\n
    locus   or   entitlement   can   be   gone   into   and   answered   by   Court   U.L.P.\n<\/p>\n
    complaint.   I, therefore, do not find anything wrong in jurisdiction  as <\/p>\n
    exercised by the Labour Court and as upheld by Industrial Court.\n<\/p>\n
    12.<\/p>\n
                  Grant of relief of back wages however cannot be viewed as <\/p>\n
    interim relief and hence contention of petitioner that final relief has been <\/p>\n
    given by Labour Court by awarding 50% back wages from the date of <\/p>\n
    termination till date of reinstatement deserves to be accepted.  Perusal of <\/p>\n
    its   orders   show   that   same   are   passed   on   an   application   for   grant   of <\/p>\n
    interim relief moved under Section 30 (2) of U.L.P. Act.  It is also clear <\/p>\n
    that parties have not produced any evidence on merits to justify or to <\/p>\n
    assail   alleged   termination.     However   in   last   paragraph   of   this   order, <\/p>\n
    Labour Court has held that grant of full back wages would amount to <\/p>\n
    deciding main complaint.  Hence at interim stage, it has awarded 50% of <\/p>\n
    said amount as back wages.  It has not envisaged the situation in which <\/p>\n
    it may be required to dismiss U.L.P. complaints finally on merit.  Grant of <\/p>\n
    back   wages   cannot   be   seen   as   an   interim   relief   at   least   in   the   facts <\/p>\n
    apparent from the impugned orders dated 6\/10\/2009 of Labour Court.\n<\/p>\n
    After   recording   a   finding   of   unfair   labour   practice   prima   facie   and <\/p>\n
                                                                ::: Downloaded on – 09\/06\/2013 16:19:59 :::<\/span>
\n                                               28<\/span><\/p>\n
    possibility of irreparable loss, relief of interim  reinstatement has been <\/p>\n
    correctly   awarded.     No  reasons   are   recorded   why   grant   of   50%   back <\/p>\n
    wages is warranted as an interim measure and there is no consideration <\/p>\n
    as to how petitioner Employer can recover back that amount if ultimately <\/p>\n
    U.L.P. Complaints as filed are required to be dismissed.  Hence said grant <\/p>\n
    of back wages is unsustainable and deserves to be quashed and set aside.\n<\/p>\n
    13.          In   view   of   discussion   above,   all   three   writ   petitions   are <\/p>\n
    accordingly   partly   allowed   and   impugned   orders   of   Labour   Court, <\/p>\n
    Buldhana dated 6\/10\/2009 passed below Exhibit 2 in U.L.P. Complaint <\/p>\n
    No.   26\/2008,   below   Exhibit   2   in   U.L.P.   Complaint   No.20\/2008   and <\/p>\n
    below   Exhibit   2   in   U.L.P.   Complaint   No.28\/2008   are   modified   and <\/p>\n
    respective direction to pay 50% back wages from the date of termination <\/p>\n
    till   reinstatement   therein   stands   quashed   and   set   aside.   Its   remaining <\/p>\n
    portion   and     rest   of   the   orders   are   maintained   unaltered.   Rule   made <\/p>\n
    absolute only to that extent with no orders as to costs.\n<\/p>\n
                                                                       JUDGE<\/p>\n
    Rgd.\n<\/p>\n
                                                            ::: Downloaded on – 09\/06\/2013 16:19:59 :::<\/span><\/p>\n","protected":false},"excerpt":{"rendered":"
Bombay High Court Birla Cotsyn (India) Ltd vs Tarachand on 26 August, 2010 Bench: B. P. Dharmadhikari 1 IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY NAGPUR BENCH, NAGPUR. WRIT PETITION Nos. 5317, 5318 & 5319 OF 2009. ……… WRIT PETITION No. 5317\/2009. Birla Cotsyn (India) Ltd., A-82, MIDC, Khamgaon, Tah. Khamgaon District Buldhana, through […]<\/p>\n","protected":false},"author":1,"featured_media":0,"comment_status":"open","ping_status":"open","sticky":false,"template":"","format":"standard","meta":{"_lmt_disableupdate":"","_lmt_disable":"","_jetpack_memberships_contains_paid_content":false,"footnotes":""},"categories":[11,8],"tags":[],"class_list":["post-153482","post","type-post","status-publish","format-standard","hentry","category-bombay-high-court","category-high-court"],"yoast_head":"\nBirla Cotsyn (India) Ltd vs Tarachand on 26 August, 2010 - Free Judgements of Supreme Court & High Court | Legal India<\/title>\n<meta name=\"robots\" content=\"index, follow, max-snippet:-1, max-image-preview:large, max-video-preview:-1\" \/>\n<link rel=\"canonical\" href=\"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/birla-cotsyn-india-ltd-vs-tarachand-on-26-august-2010\" \/>\n<meta property=\"og:locale\" content=\"en_US\" \/>\n<meta property=\"og:type\" content=\"article\" \/>\n<meta property=\"og:title\" content=\"Birla Cotsyn (India) Ltd vs Tarachand on 26 August, 2010 - Free Judgements of Supreme Court & High Court | Legal India\" \/>\n<meta property=\"og:url\" content=\"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/birla-cotsyn-india-ltd-vs-tarachand-on-26-august-2010\" \/>\n<meta property=\"og:site_name\" content=\"Free Judgements of Supreme Court & High Court | Legal India\" \/>\n<meta property=\"article:publisher\" content=\"https:\/\/www.facebook.com\/LegalindiaCom\/\" \/>\n<meta property=\"article:published_time\" content=\"2010-08-25T18:30:00+00:00\" \/>\n<meta property=\"article:modified_time\" content=\"2018-08-12T21:41:58+00:00\" \/>\n<meta property=\"og:image\" content=\"https:\/\/i0.wp.com\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/wp-content\/uploads\/sites\/5\/2025\/09\/legal-india-icon.jpg?fit=512%2C512&ssl=1\" \/>\n\t<meta property=\"og:image:width\" content=\"512\" \/>\n\t<meta property=\"og:image:height\" content=\"512\" \/>\n\t<meta property=\"og:image:type\" content=\"image\/jpeg\" \/>\n<meta name=\"author\" content=\"Legal India Admin\" \/>\n<meta name=\"twitter:card\" content=\"summary_large_image\" \/>\n<meta name=\"twitter:creator\" content=\"@legaliadmin\" \/>\n<meta name=\"twitter:site\" content=\"@Legal_india\" \/>\n<meta name=\"twitter:label1\" content=\"Written by\" \/>\n\t<meta name=\"twitter:data1\" content=\"Legal India Admin\" \/>\n\t<meta name=\"twitter:label2\" content=\"Est. reading time\" \/>\n\t<meta name=\"twitter:data2\" content=\"29 minutes\" \/>\n<script type=\"application\/ld+json\" class=\"yoast-schema-graph\">{\"@context\":\"https:\\\/\\\/schema.org\",\"@graph\":[{\"@type\":\"Article\",\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/birla-cotsyn-india-ltd-vs-tarachand-on-26-august-2010#article\",\"isPartOf\":{\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/birla-cotsyn-india-ltd-vs-tarachand-on-26-august-2010\"},\"author\":{\"name\":\"Legal India Admin\",\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/#\\\/schema\\\/person\\\/0bfdffe9059fb8bb24a86d094609c5ea\"},\"headline\":\"Birla Cotsyn (India) Ltd vs Tarachand on 26 August, 2010\",\"datePublished\":\"2010-08-25T18:30:00+00:00\",\"dateModified\":\"2018-08-12T21:41:58+00:00\",\"mainEntityOfPage\":{\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/birla-cotsyn-india-ltd-vs-tarachand-on-26-august-2010\"},\"wordCount\":5454,\"commentCount\":0,\"publisher\":{\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/#organization\"},\"articleSection\":[\"Bombay High Court\",\"High Court\"],\"inLanguage\":\"en-US\",\"potentialAction\":[{\"@type\":\"CommentAction\",\"name\":\"Comment\",\"target\":[\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/birla-cotsyn-india-ltd-vs-tarachand-on-26-august-2010#respond\"]}]},{\"@type\":\"WebPage\",\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/birla-cotsyn-india-ltd-vs-tarachand-on-26-august-2010\",\"url\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/birla-cotsyn-india-ltd-vs-tarachand-on-26-august-2010\",\"name\":\"Birla Cotsyn (India) Ltd vs Tarachand on 26 August, 2010 - Free Judgements of Supreme Court & High Court | Legal India\",\"isPartOf\":{\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/#website\"},\"datePublished\":\"2010-08-25T18:30:00+00:00\",\"dateModified\":\"2018-08-12T21:41:58+00:00\",\"breadcrumb\":{\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/birla-cotsyn-india-ltd-vs-tarachand-on-26-august-2010#breadcrumb\"},\"inLanguage\":\"en-US\",\"potentialAction\":[{\"@type\":\"ReadAction\",\"target\":[\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/birla-cotsyn-india-ltd-vs-tarachand-on-26-august-2010\"]}]},{\"@type\":\"BreadcrumbList\",\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/birla-cotsyn-india-ltd-vs-tarachand-on-26-august-2010#breadcrumb\",\"itemListElement\":[{\"@type\":\"ListItem\",\"position\":1,\"name\":\"Home\",\"item\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/\"},{\"@type\":\"ListItem\",\"position\":2,\"name\":\"Birla Cotsyn (India) Ltd vs Tarachand on 26 August, 2010\"}]},{\"@type\":\"WebSite\",\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/#website\",\"url\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/\",\"name\":\"Free Judgements of Supreme Court & High Court | Legal India\",\"description\":\"Search and read the latest judgements, orders, and rulings from the Supreme Court of India and all High Courts. A comprehensive database for lawyers, advocates, and law students.\",\"publisher\":{\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/#organization\"},\"alternateName\":\"Free judgements of Supreme Court & High Court of India | Legal India\",\"potentialAction\":[{\"@type\":\"SearchAction\",\"target\":{\"@type\":\"EntryPoint\",\"urlTemplate\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/?s={search_term_string}\"},\"query-input\":{\"@type\":\"PropertyValueSpecification\",\"valueRequired\":true,\"valueName\":\"search_term_string\"}}],\"inLanguage\":\"en-US\"},{\"@type\":\"Organization\",\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/#organization\",\"name\":\"Judgements of Supreme Court & High Court | Legal India\",\"alternateName\":\"Legal India\",\"url\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/\",\"logo\":{\"@type\":\"ImageObject\",\"inLanguage\":\"en-US\",\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/#\\\/schema\\\/logo\\\/image\\\/\",\"url\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/wp-content\\\/uploads\\\/sites\\\/5\\\/2025\\\/09\\\/legal-india-icon.jpg\",\"contentUrl\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/wp-content\\\/uploads\\\/sites\\\/5\\\/2025\\\/09\\\/legal-india-icon.jpg\",\"width\":512,\"height\":512,\"caption\":\"Judgements of Supreme Court & High Court | Legal India\"},\"image\":{\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/#\\\/schema\\\/logo\\\/image\\\/\"},\"sameAs\":[\"https:\\\/\\\/www.facebook.com\\\/LegalindiaCom\\\/\",\"https:\\\/\\\/x.com\\\/Legal_india\"]},{\"@type\":\"Person\",\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/#\\\/schema\\\/person\\\/0bfdffe9059fb8bb24a86d094609c5ea\",\"name\":\"Legal India Admin\",\"image\":{\"@type\":\"ImageObject\",\"inLanguage\":\"en-US\",\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/secure.gravatar.com\\\/avatar\\\/4faa9d728ed1af3b73d52225c7f12901ac726fe6f7ea0a3348a1d51f3a930987?s=96&d=mm&r=g\",\"url\":\"https:\\\/\\\/secure.gravatar.com\\\/avatar\\\/4faa9d728ed1af3b73d52225c7f12901ac726fe6f7ea0a3348a1d51f3a930987?s=96&d=mm&r=g\",\"contentUrl\":\"https:\\\/\\\/secure.gravatar.com\\\/avatar\\\/4faa9d728ed1af3b73d52225c7f12901ac726fe6f7ea0a3348a1d51f3a930987?s=96&d=mm&r=g\",\"caption\":\"Legal India Admin\"},\"sameAs\":[\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\",\"https:\\\/\\\/x.com\\\/legaliadmin\"],\"url\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/author\\\/legal-india-admin\"}]}<\/script>\n<!-- \/ Yoast SEO plugin. -->","yoast_head_json":{"title":"Birla Cotsyn (India) Ltd vs Tarachand on 26 August, 2010 - Free Judgements of Supreme Court & High Court | Legal India","robots":{"index":"index","follow":"follow","max-snippet":"max-snippet:-1","max-image-preview":"max-image-preview:large","max-video-preview":"max-video-preview:-1"},"canonical":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/birla-cotsyn-india-ltd-vs-tarachand-on-26-august-2010","og_locale":"en_US","og_type":"article","og_title":"Birla Cotsyn (India) Ltd vs Tarachand on 26 August, 2010 - Free Judgements of Supreme Court & High Court | Legal India","og_url":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/birla-cotsyn-india-ltd-vs-tarachand-on-26-august-2010","og_site_name":"Free Judgements of Supreme Court & High Court | Legal India","article_publisher":"https:\/\/www.facebook.com\/LegalindiaCom\/","article_published_time":"2010-08-25T18:30:00+00:00","article_modified_time":"2018-08-12T21:41:58+00:00","og_image":[{"width":512,"height":512,"url":"https:\/\/i0.wp.com\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/wp-content\/uploads\/sites\/5\/2025\/09\/legal-india-icon.jpg?fit=512%2C512&ssl=1","type":"image\/jpeg"}],"author":"Legal India Admin","twitter_card":"summary_large_image","twitter_creator":"@legaliadmin","twitter_site":"@Legal_india","twitter_misc":{"Written by":"Legal India Admin","Est. reading time":"29 minutes"},"schema":{"@context":"https:\/\/schema.org","@graph":[{"@type":"Article","@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/birla-cotsyn-india-ltd-vs-tarachand-on-26-august-2010#article","isPartOf":{"@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/birla-cotsyn-india-ltd-vs-tarachand-on-26-august-2010"},"author":{"name":"Legal India Admin","@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/#\/schema\/person\/0bfdffe9059fb8bb24a86d094609c5ea"},"headline":"Birla Cotsyn (India) Ltd vs Tarachand on 26 August, 2010","datePublished":"2010-08-25T18:30:00+00:00","dateModified":"2018-08-12T21:41:58+00:00","mainEntityOfPage":{"@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/birla-cotsyn-india-ltd-vs-tarachand-on-26-august-2010"},"wordCount":5454,"commentCount":0,"publisher":{"@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/#organization"},"articleSection":["Bombay High Court","High Court"],"inLanguage":"en-US","potentialAction":[{"@type":"CommentAction","name":"Comment","target":["https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/birla-cotsyn-india-ltd-vs-tarachand-on-26-august-2010#respond"]}]},{"@type":"WebPage","@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/birla-cotsyn-india-ltd-vs-tarachand-on-26-august-2010","url":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/birla-cotsyn-india-ltd-vs-tarachand-on-26-august-2010","name":"Birla Cotsyn (India) Ltd vs Tarachand on 26 August, 2010 - Free Judgements of Supreme Court & High Court | Legal India","isPartOf":{"@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/#website"},"datePublished":"2010-08-25T18:30:00+00:00","dateModified":"2018-08-12T21:41:58+00:00","breadcrumb":{"@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/birla-cotsyn-india-ltd-vs-tarachand-on-26-august-2010#breadcrumb"},"inLanguage":"en-US","potentialAction":[{"@type":"ReadAction","target":["https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/birla-cotsyn-india-ltd-vs-tarachand-on-26-august-2010"]}]},{"@type":"BreadcrumbList","@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/birla-cotsyn-india-ltd-vs-tarachand-on-26-august-2010#breadcrumb","itemListElement":[{"@type":"ListItem","position":1,"name":"Home","item":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/"},{"@type":"ListItem","position":2,"name":"Birla Cotsyn (India) Ltd vs Tarachand on 26 August, 2010"}]},{"@type":"WebSite","@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/#website","url":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/","name":"Free Judgements of Supreme Court & High Court | Legal India","description":"Search and read the latest judgements, orders, and rulings from the Supreme Court of India and all High Courts. A comprehensive database for lawyers, advocates, and law students.","publisher":{"@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/#organization"},"alternateName":"Free judgements of Supreme Court & High Court of India | Legal India","potentialAction":[{"@type":"SearchAction","target":{"@type":"EntryPoint","urlTemplate":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/?s={search_term_string}"},"query-input":{"@type":"PropertyValueSpecification","valueRequired":true,"valueName":"search_term_string"}}],"inLanguage":"en-US"},{"@type":"Organization","@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/#organization","name":"Judgements of Supreme Court & High Court | Legal India","alternateName":"Legal India","url":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/","logo":{"@type":"ImageObject","inLanguage":"en-US","@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/#\/schema\/logo\/image\/","url":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/wp-content\/uploads\/sites\/5\/2025\/09\/legal-india-icon.jpg","contentUrl":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/wp-content\/uploads\/sites\/5\/2025\/09\/legal-india-icon.jpg","width":512,"height":512,"caption":"Judgements of Supreme Court & High Court | Legal India"},"image":{"@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/#\/schema\/logo\/image\/"},"sameAs":["https:\/\/www.facebook.com\/LegalindiaCom\/","https:\/\/x.com\/Legal_india"]},{"@type":"Person","@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/#\/schema\/person\/0bfdffe9059fb8bb24a86d094609c5ea","name":"Legal India Admin","image":{"@type":"ImageObject","inLanguage":"en-US","@id":"https:\/\/secure.gravatar.com\/avatar\/4faa9d728ed1af3b73d52225c7f12901ac726fe6f7ea0a3348a1d51f3a930987?s=96&d=mm&r=g","url":"https:\/\/secure.gravatar.com\/avatar\/4faa9d728ed1af3b73d52225c7f12901ac726fe6f7ea0a3348a1d51f3a930987?s=96&d=mm&r=g","contentUrl":"https:\/\/secure.gravatar.com\/avatar\/4faa9d728ed1af3b73d52225c7f12901ac726fe6f7ea0a3348a1d51f3a930987?s=96&d=mm&r=g","caption":"Legal India Admin"},"sameAs":["https:\/\/www.legalindia.com","https:\/\/x.com\/legaliadmin"],"url":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/author\/legal-india-admin"}]}},"modified_by":null,"jetpack_featured_media_url":"","jetpack_sharing_enabled":true,"jetpack_likes_enabled":true,"jetpack-related-posts":[],"_links":{"self":[{"href":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/posts\/153482","targetHints":{"allow":["GET"]}}],"collection":[{"href":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/posts"}],"about":[{"href":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/types\/post"}],"author":[{"embeddable":true,"href":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/users\/1"}],"replies":[{"embeddable":true,"href":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/comments?post=153482"}],"version-history":[{"count":0,"href":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/posts\/153482\/revisions"}],"wp:attachment":[{"href":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/media?parent=153482"}],"wp:term":[{"taxonomy":"category","embeddable":true,"href":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/categories?post=153482"},{"taxonomy":"post_tag","embeddable":true,"href":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/tags?post=153482"}],"curies":[{"name":"wp","href":"https:\/\/api.w.org\/{rel}","templated":true}]}}