{"id":34496,"date":"2009-03-30T00:00:00","date_gmt":"2009-03-29T18:30:00","guid":{"rendered":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/executive-engineer-vs-raju-banduji-raut-on-30-march-2009"},"modified":"2018-08-06T05:27:31","modified_gmt":"2018-08-05T23:57:31","slug":"executive-engineer-vs-raju-banduji-raut-on-30-march-2009","status":"publish","type":"post","link":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/executive-engineer-vs-raju-banduji-raut-on-30-march-2009","title":{"rendered":"Executive Engineer vs Raju Banduji Raut on 30 March, 2009"},"content":{"rendered":"
Bombay High Court<\/div>\n
Executive Engineer vs Raju Banduji Raut on 30 March, 2009<\/div>\n
Bench: S.B. Deshmukh<\/div>\n
             IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY\n                       BENCH AT AURANGABAD\n\n\n\n\n                                                                 \n                 WRIT PETITION NO. 1218 OF 2009\n\n\n\n\n                                         \n     Executive Engineer,\n     Central Public Works Department,\n     Plot No.110, Shastri Nagar,\n     Aurangabad                              .. Petitioner\n                                         (Orig. Respondent)\n\n\n\n\n                                        \n            VERSUS\n\n     Raju Banduji Raut,\n     Age : 31 years, Occu.: Nil,\n     R\/o : Airport Quarter,\n\n\n\n\n                               \n     Chikalthana, Aurangabad                 .. Respondent\n                                        (Orig. Complainant)\n                     \n                    \n     Mr. Nitin S. Chaudhari, Advocate for the Petitioner\n\n     Mr. V.D. Hon, Advocate h\/f. Mr. S.S. Piwal, Advocate\n     for the Respondent\n      \n   \n\n\n\n                              CORAM : S.B. DESHMUKH, J.\n<\/pre>\n
                             DATED : 30.03.2009<\/p>\n
     ORAL JUDGMENT:-\n<\/p>\n
     1.     Heard    learned counsel for the parties.            Rule,<\/p>\n
     made   returnable forthwith.   Heard finally by consent<\/p>\n
     of the parties.\n<\/p>\n
                                         ::: Downloaded on – 09\/06\/2013 14:28:48 :::<\/span><\/p>\n
      2.        The petitioner, is the respondent in complaint<\/p>\n
     (ULP) no.        43 of 2007 pending in the Court of learned<\/p>\n
     Judge, Labour Court at Aurangabad.                             Said complaint is<\/p>\n
     filed     by     the respondent.                 Parties         hereinafter            are<\/p>\n
     referred         to        their       status          as      complainant              and<\/p>\n
     respondent for convenience.                      Copy of the complaint is<\/p>\n
     on     record.            (Page     19      of    the       compilation).                In<\/p>\n
     paragraph no.1 statement is made that complainant and<\/p>\n
     respondent           are     having relationship of employer                            and<\/p>\n
     employee.            In     paragraph        no.2 it           is     pleaded          that<\/p>\n
     complainant           has       been     appointed as a Clerk                    in     the<\/p>\n
     stores<\/p>\n
                    department              of        the        respondent.                Said<\/p>\n
     appointment           is     oral, made in the month of                        January,<\/p>\n
     1994.         From        the     appointment,          complainant              was     in<\/p>\n
     continuous           service       for more than 240 days till                          the<\/p>\n
     date     of oral termination.                    This oral termination                   is<\/p>\n
     alleged        in the month of January, 2007.                           In paragraph<\/p>\n
     no.2     it     is        stated that cause of                 action         arose      on<\/p>\n
     January        24,        2007.        He claims that he                was      drawing<\/p>\n
     salary        of Rs.5000\/- on the date of oral termination,<\/p>\n
     was     required           to     remain present for 24                   hours,        was<\/p>\n
     working        with stores department, quarter was allotted<\/p>\n
     to the complainant for residence purpose, quarter was<\/p>\n
     in     possession of the complainant.                          Overtime was paid<\/p>\n
     to the complainant.                Grievance is raised in paragraph<\/p>\n
     no.4     that        complainant has been                   terminated           without<\/p>\n
                                                                 ::: Downloaded on – 09\/06\/2013 14:28:48 :::<\/span>
\n                                                (3)<\/span><\/p>\n
     following        due process of law and thus respondent                                    is<\/p>\n
     engaged     in        unfair        labour practise.                  There          is     no<\/p>\n
     compliance           of     provisions          of      section            25    of        the<\/p>\n
     Industrial Disputes Act according to the complainant.\n<\/p>\n
     In     paragraph          no.7      contention is              raised        that         all<\/p>\n
     concerned            documents          in    respect            of     service             of<\/p>\n
     complainant           are in custody of the respondent.                               Some<\/p>\n
     documents which were in possession of the complainant<\/p>\n
     have     been        filed        alongwith           the      complaint.                 This<\/p>\n
     complaint seems to have been filed on 24.1.2007 under<\/p>\n
     section     28,           30     r\/w.     item no.1 (a),              (b),       (f)        of<\/p>\n
     Schedule        IV        of     M.R.T.U.       and P.U.L.P.                Act,          1971<\/p>\n
     (“Act, 1971” for short).                     After filing the complaint,<\/p>\n
     application has been filed by the complainant seeking<\/p>\n
     allotment        of work and setting aside oral termination<\/p>\n
     dated      24.1.2007.                   After          entering             appearance<\/p>\n
     respondent            filed        written           statement\/say              to        the<\/p>\n
     complaint.            Annexure “B” is copy of the said written<\/p>\n
     statement        (page 44).             In paragraph no.1, it has been<\/p>\n
     pleaded     that          complainant was never employed by                               the<\/p>\n
     answering        respondent in any of the capacity and                                    the<\/p>\n
     employer         and           employee       relationship              never         exist<\/p>\n
     between     complainant             and respondent.                   In     paragraph<\/p>\n
     no.7     same thing is reiterated with further                                  pleading<\/p>\n
                                                                 ::: Downloaded on – 09\/06\/2013 14:28:48 :::<\/span>
\n                                        (4)<\/span><\/p>\n
     that     the watch and ward of CPWD.            Stores located              at<\/p>\n
     Air-port         premises,      Chikalthana,        Aurangabad             was<\/p>\n
     arranged       by calling tenders from different                  security<\/p>\n
     Agencies\/service          providers.      It is further             pleaded<\/p>\n
     that     security       agency to whom the work            contract         is<\/p>\n
     given     by     the CPWD., has employed          the      complainant.\n<\/p>\n
     Further        it is pleaded that on account of termination<\/p>\n
     of the contract it seems that the security agency has<\/p>\n
     terminated       the services of the complainant.                   Further<\/p>\n
     statement       is<\/p>\n
                            made    that    CPWD.      is     not      at       all<\/p>\n
     responsible          for termination.     This written statement<\/p>\n
     seems to have been filed on 21.7.2007.\n<\/p>\n
     3.        Learned trial Court after hearing the parties,<\/p>\n
     on     Exh.      U-2     application framed       four       issues        for<\/p>\n
     determination.           Issue no.1 framed by the trial Court<\/p>\n
     was     in respect of prima facie case, if proved by the<\/p>\n
     complainant.           Second issue was in respect of balance<\/p>\n
     of      convenience.           Third      issue        was      regarding<\/p>\n
     irreparable          loss.    Fourth issue is as to whether the<\/p>\n
     complainant          approached   the Court with clean               hands.\n<\/p>\n
     Finding         on     this   issue\/issues      is       recorded           in<\/p>\n
     affirmative          in favour of the complainant.              The trial<\/p>\n
     Court allowed the application Exh.                U-2, directed the<\/p>\n
                                                    ::: Downloaded on – 09\/06\/2013 14:28:48 :::<\/span>
\n                                                 (5)<\/span><\/p>\n
     respondent              to        keep     the      complainant             on        work<\/p>\n
     (reinstatement)               with wages.           This order by the trial<\/p>\n
     Court was dated 11.4.2008..                      This order was subjected<\/p>\n
     to     Revision          under section 44 of the Act of 1971                            by<\/p>\n
     the     respondent.                This revision complaint (ULP)                       no.\n<\/p>\n
     66     of       2008     has       been      dismissed          by      the      Member,<\/p>\n
     Industrial          Court,             Aurangabad     by      order       passed        on<\/p>\n
     January          14, 2009, annexure “E” to the petition.                                It<\/p>\n
     is this order which is challenged in this Petition.\n<\/p>\n
     4.          I     heard        learned       counsel        for      the      parties.\n<\/p>\n
     Advocate          Mr.        Chaudhari for the petitioner relied on<\/p>\n
     three       judgments             of     the Supreme        Court.          Mr.        Hon<\/p>\n
     learned          counsel          for     the respondent relied                 on     two<\/p>\n
     judgments of this Court;                     (i) Judgment of the learned<\/p>\n
     Single          Bench        of    this Court and           (ii)       judgment         of<\/p>\n
     Larger          Bench of this Court.                I would refer to                 these<\/p>\n
     judgments at appropriate stage.\n<\/p>\n
     5.          Act     of 1971, is a local act applicable to the<\/p>\n
     State       of Maharashtra.                Sub section 3 of Section 2 of<\/p>\n
     Act,        1971        provides          that      except         as         otherwise<\/p>\n
     hereinafter             provided,          this act shall apply                 to     the<\/p>\n
     industries          to which the Bombay Industrial                          Relations<\/p>\n
                                                                ::: Downloaded on – 09\/06\/2013 14:28:48 :::<\/span>
\n                                          (6)<\/span><\/p>\n
     Act,     1946      (Bom.) (XI of 1947), for the                    time       being<\/p>\n
     applies and also to any industry as defined in clause<\/p>\n
     (j) of section 2 of the Industrial Disputes Act, 1947<\/p>\n
     and      the       State    Government         in    relation            to      any<\/p>\n
     industrial         dispute, concerning such industry is                          the<\/p>\n
     appropriate         Government in this Act.                Definitions are<\/p>\n
     given        under section 3 of Act of 1971.                   “Central Act”\n<\/p>\n
     means        the Industrial Dispute Act, 1947 (2) of 3                           Act<\/p>\n
     of 1971.        “Court” is also defined under section 3 sub<\/p>\n
     section       4,<\/p>\n
                         for the purposes of chapter VI                      and      VII<\/p>\n
     meaning       thereby the Industrial Court, or as the case<\/p>\n
     may     be     Labour      Court.   Definition            of     employee         is<\/p>\n
     covered       by section 3(5) and of employer is                        provided<\/p>\n
     under        section 3 sub section 6 of the Act, 1971.                           The<\/p>\n
     State         Government       appointed             committee,            called<\/p>\n
     “Committee         on unfair labour practices” for                      defining<\/p>\n
     certain activities of employers and workers and their<\/p>\n
     organisation          which could be treated as unfair labour<\/p>\n
     practices       and      have suggested action which could                        be<\/p>\n
     taken         against      employers      or        workers         or        their<\/p>\n
     organisations         for    engaging      in such           unfair        labour<\/p>\n
     practices.          It     was the aim and object of the                      State<\/p>\n
     Government          while      bringing              this        statute          in<\/p>\n
     operation-enforcement-application                     to provide for the<\/p>\n
                                                          ::: Downloaded on – 09\/06\/2013 14:28:48 :::<\/span>
\n                                                 (7)<\/span><\/p>\n
     recognition           of the trade unions for facilitating the<\/p>\n
     collective           bargaining          for certain undertaking;\n<\/p>\n
                                                          undertaking                   to\n\n\n\n\n                                                           \n     state       their         rights    and      obligations;               to     confer\n\n     certain        powers        on un-recognised unions, to                     provide\n\n     for     declaring           certain      strikes          and     lock-outs         as\n\n\n\n\n                                                          \n     illegal        strikes and lock outs, to define and provide\n\n     for      the     prevention           of     certain            unfair         labour\n\n     practices,           to     constitute           Courts     (as     independent\n\n\n\n\n                                               \n     machinery)            for     carrying       out      the         purposes          of\n\n     recognition\n                           \n                           to     start unions and for               enforcing          the\n\n     provisions           relating       to     unfair         practices          and    to\n                          \n     provide        for        matters     connected       with        the        purposes\n\n     aforesaid.\n      \n\n\n     6.        On     my query to both the learned counsel as to\n   \n\n\n\n     which       statute applies to the parties in the case                             on\n\n     hand,       learned counsel Mr.              Hon could not reply.                  Mr.\n\n\n\n\n\n     Chaudhari        learned        counsel for the            petitioner           made\n\n<\/pre>\n
     available, copy of the Central Civil Services Manual,<\/p>\n
     according to him, classification has been provided as<\/p>\n
     A,    B, C and D.            According to him present complainant<\/p>\n
     is    not employee of the respondent, however if it                                is<\/p>\n
     accepted        or presumed in that circumstances, he comes<\/p>\n
     in    “C”      class.        He however, strongly contended                     that<\/p>\n
                                                           ::: Downloaded on – 09\/06\/2013 14:28:48 :::<\/span>
\n                                            (8)<\/span><\/p>\n
     complainant is not employee of the petitioner.\n<\/p>\n
     .         Central          Civil       Services           (Classification,<\/p>\n
     Control and Appeal) Rules, 1965 (hereinafter referred<\/p>\n
     to     as “Rules, 1965”).            These Rules, 1965, have                   been<\/p>\n
     framed,       under        Article    309 of the          Constitution            of<\/p>\n
     India.        It is clarified under these rules that these<\/p>\n
     rules are framed under Article 309 subject to Article<\/p>\n
     311 of the Constitution and therefore these rules are<\/p>\n
     not      applicable          to     civil        employees       of       Defence<\/p>\n
     Department.           In     part     II    of     the    Rules       of       1965,<\/p>\n
     classification         of        services    is     enumerated            as     (i)<\/p>\n
     Central       Civil        Services, Group-A (ii) Central                    Civil<\/p>\n
     Services,       Group-B;           (iii) Central          Civil       Services,<\/p>\n
     Group-C;       (iv) Central Civil Services, Group-D.                           Part<\/p>\n
     III,     of    Rules        of    1965 is        titled    as      “Appointing<\/p>\n
     Authority”.           Under       Rule 8 it is provided               that       all<\/p>\n
     appointments          to Central Civil Services, Class I                         and<\/p>\n
     Central       Civil        Posts, Class-I, shall be made by                      the<\/p>\n
     President.       There is rider i.e.               proviso to this Rule<\/p>\n
     8.     So far other appointments are concerned Rule 9 is<\/p>\n
     relevant       i.e.         appointments to other              services          and<\/p>\n
                                                          ::: Downloaded on – 09\/06\/2013 14:28:48 :::<\/span>
\n                                      (9)<\/span><\/p>\n
     posts.         While parting from this part of the order it<\/p>\n
     is     noticed     that the rules of 1965, are holding                  the<\/p>\n
     filed.         Classification of the post, appointments                  to<\/p>\n
     be     made     by the specific authorities, procedure                  for<\/p>\n
     suspension         is   provided   in   these         rules.            Mr.<\/p>\n
     Chaudhari submits that forum available to complainant<\/p>\n
     is Central Administrative Tribunal.\n<\/p>\n
     7.       In      foregoing paragraphs of this order, I have<\/p>\n
     referred to the provisions of Act of 1971, provisions<\/p>\n
     of     Rules,     1965, brief pleadings of complainant                  and<\/p>\n
     respondent        in their plaint and written statement                  as<\/p>\n
     well     as reference in nut shell is made to the                   order<\/p>\n
     passed        by the learned trial Court and the revisional<\/p>\n
     Court.\n<\/p>\n
     8.       I      would   refer to the judgment of the              larger<\/p>\n
     Bench     of     this   Court   since the    judgments           of     the<\/p>\n
     Supreme Court pointed out by Mr.            Chaudhari have been<\/p>\n
     referred        to and considered by the larger Bench.                   It<\/p>\n
     is     in the matter of Tukaram Tanaji Mandhare and anr.\n<\/p>\n
     v.     Raymand     Woolen Mills Ltd.    and       others         2005(4)<\/p>\n
     Mh.L.J.        1045.    In this judgment, the judgments                  of<\/p>\n
     the    Supreme     Court in the matter of         Vividh         Kamagar<\/p>\n
                                                 ::: Downloaded on – 09\/06\/2013 14:28:48 :::<\/span>
\n                                              (10)<\/span><\/p>\n
     Sabha        V.      Kalyani        Steels Ltd.<\/a>     (2001) 2          SCC        381,<\/p>\n
     Sipla        Ltd.         V.      Maharashtra General         Kamgar          Union<\/p>\n
     (2001)        3     SCC        101, Sarva Shramik Sangh           V.        Indian<\/p>\n
     Smelting and Refining Company Ltd.<\/a>                     (2003) 10 SCC 455<\/p>\n
     have     been        referred to.        This was writ petition                  no.<\/p>\n
\n\n\n\n\n                                                        \n     1204     of 2003 with other two writ petition decided by\n\n     the     larger           Bench of this Court on June 6,                2005        at\n\n     Mumbai.        Some other judgments of this Court were also\n\n\n\n\n                                            \n     considered           by        the larger Bench of this Court.                   The\n\n     facts        have\n                              \n                              been     narrated by the      larger         Bench        in\n\n     paragraph no.1 of the judgment.                   There the respondent\n                             \n     Company        had disputed the status of the employees and\n\n     contended           in     written     statement that         there         is     no\n\n     relationship              of    employer-employee with any               of      the\n      \n\n\n     petitioners.               Employment    of    the       complainant             was\n   \n\n\n\n     through contractors.                Contention was raised on behalf\n\n     of     the     Company,           that complaints would have              to      be\n\n\n\n\n\n     decided        regarding          maintainability        by     the       Court.\n\n     There        the     Industrial Court-Labour Court had                    upheld\n\n     the     preliminary             objection raised by the            respondent\n\n     Company        and it was upheld that complaints deserve to\n\n\n\n\n\n     be dismissed.              Accordingly complaints were dismissed,\n\n     i.e.         how     petitioners in that case filed                   the        writ\n\n     petitions            challenging         the      dismissal            of         the\n\n\n\n\n                                                         ::: Downloaded on - 09\/06\/2013 14:28:48 :::<\/span>\n                                                (11)<\/span>\n\n\n\n\n     complaints.               The learned Single Judge of this Court,\n\n\n\n\n                                                                                   \n     before        whom        the writ petitions came up for                   hearing\n\n\n\n\n                                                           \n     had    noted that all the cases decided by the                             Supreme\n\n     Court,        (which        are    also referred         to     in     foregoing\n\n     paragraphs)           are covered by provisions of Act of 1947\n\n\n\n\n                                                          \n     whereas        the        petition      before the       Court        relate       to\n\n     industries           covered       by     the      provisions         of     Bombay\n\n     Industrial           Relations Act, 1946.            (B.I.R.         for short)\n\n\n\n\n                                              \n     Noticing        conflicting          judgments\/orders of the                  Court\n\n     the    learned\n                            ig Single     Bench of this         Court       made       the\n\n     reference.                Questions        which      are     referred            for\n                          \n     resolution           to     larger      Bench have been           recorded         in\n\n     paragraph        no.2        of the judgment.          Question no.1              was\n\n<\/pre>\n
     whether a person who is an employee with a contractor<\/p>\n
     who    undertakes that execution of any or whole of the<\/p>\n
     work     or any part of the work which is ordinarily the<\/p>\n
     work     of     the undertaking is an employee                      within        the<\/p>\n
     meaning        of     section 3(5) of M.R.T.U.                  and        P.U.L.P.\n<\/p>\n
     Act,     1971.            Two     other    questions        formulated          were<\/p>\n
     pertaining to definition under section 3(3) of Bombay<\/p>\n
     Industrial           Relations       Act.        Answers recorded by              the<\/p>\n
     larger        Bench to the questions referred are noted                            in<\/p>\n
     paragraph no.19 of the judgment.\n<\/p>\n
                                                           ::: Downloaded on – 09\/06\/2013 14:28:48 :::<\/span>
\n                                            (12)<\/span><\/p>\n
     .         Mr.      Chaudhari the learned counsel has                       cited<\/p>\n
     the     judgments        of the learned Single Bench                  of     this<\/p>\n
     Court     in     the     matter of Janprabha Offset                 Works       V.\n<\/p>\n
     Sarva     Shramik        Sangh and anr.       2007 (3)           Bom.        C.R.\n<\/p>\n
     91.     . Counsel        Mr.   V.D.     Hon for the petitioner has<\/p>\n
     relied     on     judgment of the learned Single                    Bench       of<\/p>\n
     this     Court in the matter of Akhil Bharatiya                         Shramik<\/p>\n
     Kamgar V.        Buildtech Constructions and ors.<\/a>                     reported<\/p>\n
     in 2004(3) Mh.L.J.             142.   There the counsel Mr.                  V.D.\n<\/p>\n
     Hon     relied\n                        \n                        on observations that mere                 statement          of\n\n     denial     of relationship in the reply affidavit or for\n                       \n     that     matter     written statement, by itself cannot                         be\n\n     the     basis for taking the view that the Court has                            no\n\n     jurisdiction       to try and decide the complaint.                        There\n      \n\n\n     in     paragraph        nos.   4 and 6 this Court has                 observed\n   \n\n\n\n     that     Industrial Court in that case has held that                            it\n\n     had     no jurisdiction to try and decide his                       complaint\n\n\n\n\n\n     as     filed by the petitioners under the provisions                            of\n\n     M.R.T.U.        and P.U.L.P.        Act, 1976.\n\n\n\n     9.        Mr.      Hon learned counsel submits that                      though\n\n\n\n\n\n     written         statement      is     filed   on      behalf          of       the\n\n     respondent,        specific ground is not raised, that                         the\n\n     learned         Judge     Labour      Court    does        not      have       the\n\n\n\n\n                                                        ::: Downloaded on - 09\/06\/2013 14:28:48 :::<\/span>\n                                               (13)<\/span>\n\n\n\n\n     jurisdiction          to entertain the complaint.                          According\n\n\n\n\n                                                                                        \n     to     him, in the absence of such contention raised                                   in\n\n\n\n\n                                                               \n     the     pleadings,          it     was       not     for       the       Courts        to\n\n     investigate             and            record         any            finding           on\n\n     employer-employee             relationship.           He further               submits\n\n\n\n\n                                                              \n     that     the     learned Labour Judge in                     paragraph          no.12,\n\n     though     has        referred         the     contention           of        defendant\n\n     disputing        the relationship as employer and                             employee\n\n\n\n\n                                              \n     no     evidence        is led on behalf of the respondent                             and\n\n     the     Court\n                           \n                          therefore prima facie has considered                             the\n\n     material        on     record          and granted relief                at     interim\n                          \n     stage     in favour of the complainant.                         He also         points\n\n     out     from     the        judgments         of    the      revisional             Court\n\n     paragraph            nos.         5     and     6   that       the        issue        of\n      \n\n\n     jurisdiction          has        not     been raised           in     the       written\n   \n\n\n\n     statement        by     the respondent and learned                       revisional\n\n     Court     has observed that such issue can be raised                                   by\n\n\n\n\n\n     amending        the     written          statement.          He     supports          the\n\n     order passed by the Courts below.\n\n\n\n     10.      The         learned Judge, Labour Court, in paragraph\n\n\n\n\n\n     no.6,     has        noticed       the contentions                raised       in     the\n\n<\/pre>\n
     written statement denying the alleged relationship of<\/p>\n
     employer        and     employee amongst the                   complainant            and<\/p>\n
                                                               ::: Downloaded on – 09\/06\/2013 14:28:48 :::<\/span>
\n                                               (14)<\/span><\/p>\n
     respondent.               In     paragraph no.12 learned                Judge        has<\/p>\n
     made     a        brief reference to this contention                        however,<\/p>\n
     proceeded           to examine prima facie case and recorded a<\/p>\n
     finding in favour of the complainant.                            The revisional<\/p>\n
     Court        while        considering      the      revision           application<\/p>\n
     filed        by     the petitioner in paragraph no.6                        observed<\/p>\n
     that the point of jurisdiction which goes to the root<\/p>\n
     of     the matter can be raised by the petitioner herein<\/p>\n
     by way of amending the written statement.                               Further it<\/p>\n
     has     been<\/p>\n
                         observed that in the written statement                            no<\/p>\n
     such     point is raised though such point may be a                                  law<\/p>\n
     point however at this stage cannot be concluded.\n<\/p>\n
     .         It         is         not    possible     to      accede          to       the\n      \n\n\n     observations              of the learned revisional Court.                         Copy\n   \n\n\n\n     of     the        written statement is on record.                       There        the\n\n     petitioner           has       in     clear terms denied             the      alleged\n\n\n\n\n\n     relationship              of    employer    and      employee           among        the\n\n     parties           i.e.     complainant and respondent.                      Noticing\n\n     such     pleadings             it     was for the     Courts           below       i.e.\n\n     learned           Judge        as well as revisional Court, to                     find\n\n\n\n\n\n<\/pre>\n
     out as to whether they have jurisdiction to entertain<\/p>\n
     and decide the complaint.                  Issue of jurisdiction hits<\/p>\n
     the     Court or authority, at the thresh hold and                                 such<\/p>\n
                                                              ::: Downloaded on – 09\/06\/2013 14:28:48 :::<\/span>
\n                                            (15)<\/span><\/p>\n
     issue       in fact goes to the root of the matter.                              Once<\/p>\n
     it     is held that Court is having jurisdiction,                              there<\/p>\n
     is     no    difficulty for the Court to proceed with                             the<\/p>\n
     case     before       the     Court.          These      are      the       Courts,<\/p>\n
     functioning          under     the provisions of the Act,                      1971.\n<\/p>\n
     It     was for these Courts, to take into consideration,<\/p>\n
     the     case of the complainant himself as to whether he<\/p>\n
     is being governed by a particular or specific statute<\/p>\n
     and\/or can resort to provisions of Act, 1971.                               Unless<\/p>\n
     Courts<\/p>\n
                  are satisfied that the complaint filed by the<\/p>\n
     complainant          is     maintainable, Court should not                      have<\/p>\n
     proceeded         to examine and decide the application                           for<\/p>\n
     interim relief under section 30 of the Act of 1971.\n<\/p>\n
     11.         Second        aspect     of    the matter         which        I     have<\/p>\n
     noticed          is that relief claimed in the main complaint<\/p>\n
     virtually         is sought in the interim application under<\/p>\n
     section 30 of the Act, 1971.                   The trial Court awarded<\/p>\n
     the     said       relief     which is in the            nature        of       final<\/p>\n
     relief       at     the interim stage.           The revisional                Court<\/p>\n
     which       is     expected        to consider this aspect                 of     the<\/p>\n
     matter,          dismissed     the        revision and        confirmed           the<\/p>\n
     order       passed by the trial Court.                 In my view              orders<\/p>\n
     impugned in this writ petition requires to be quashed<\/p>\n
                                                           ::: Downloaded on – 09\/06\/2013 14:28:48 :::<\/span>
\n                                          (16)<\/span><\/p>\n
     and set aside.\n<\/p>\n
     12.       Having          considered   the      conspectus           of     the<\/p>\n
     judgments        cited,      in my view case for          allowing          the<\/p>\n
     petition        is     established.       However it is made              clear<\/p>\n
     that    this         Court has not recorded a finding, on                   the<\/p>\n
     issue     of maintainability of the complaint before the<\/p>\n
     learned        Judge, Labour Court under the provisions                      of<\/p>\n
     Act,    of 1971.          It is for the Court concerned               before<\/p>\n
     whom    to<\/p>\n
                     decide maintainability of the complaint                      on<\/p>\n
     merits,        after      hearing   the     parties     and      affording<\/p>\n
     opportunity          to    lead evidence, if they desire to                  do<\/p>\n
     so.\n<\/p>\n
     13.       In     this view of the matter, writ petition                      is<\/p>\n
     allowed.         Orders impugned in this writ petition                      are<\/p>\n
     quashed        and set aside.       Rule made absolute in                 above<\/p>\n
     terms without any order as to costs.\n<\/p>\n
                                          (S.B. DESHMUKH, J.)<\/p>\n
                                                     ::: Downloaded on – 09\/06\/2013 14:28:48 :::<\/span>
\n                        (17)<\/span><\/p>\n
     arp\/3039\/1218<\/p>\n
                              ::: Downloaded on – 09\/06\/2013 14:28:48 :::<\/span>\n <\/p>\n","protected":false},"excerpt":{"rendered":"
Bombay High Court Executive Engineer vs Raju Banduji Raut on 30 March, 2009 Bench: S.B. Deshmukh IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY BENCH AT AURANGABAD WRIT PETITION NO. 1218 OF 2009 Executive Engineer, Central Public Works Department, Plot No.110, Shastri Nagar, Aurangabad .. Petitioner (Orig. Respondent) VERSUS Raju Banduji Raut, Age : 31 […]<\/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-34496","post","type-post","status-publish","format-standard","hentry","category-bombay-high-court","category-high-court"],"yoast_head":"\nExecutive Engineer vs Raju Banduji Raut on 30 March, 2009 - 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\/executive-engineer-vs-raju-banduji-raut-on-30-march-2009\" \/>\n<meta property=\"og:locale\" content=\"en_US\" \/>\n<meta property=\"og:type\" content=\"article\" \/>\n<meta property=\"og:title\" content=\"Executive Engineer vs Raju Banduji Raut on 30 March, 2009 - Free Judgements of Supreme Court & High Court | Legal India\" \/>\n<meta property=\"og:url\" content=\"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/executive-engineer-vs-raju-banduji-raut-on-30-march-2009\" \/>\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=\"2009-03-29T18:30:00+00:00\" \/>\n<meta property=\"article:modified_time\" content=\"2018-08-05T23:57:31+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=\"14 minutes\" \/>\n<script type=\"application\/ld+json\" class=\"yoast-schema-graph\">{\"@context\":\"https:\\\/\\\/schema.org\",\"@graph\":[{\"@type\":\"Article\",\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/executive-engineer-vs-raju-banduji-raut-on-30-march-2009#article\",\"isPartOf\":{\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/executive-engineer-vs-raju-banduji-raut-on-30-march-2009\"},\"author\":{\"name\":\"Legal India Admin\",\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/#\\\/schema\\\/person\\\/0bfdffe9059fb8bb24a86d094609c5ea\"},\"headline\":\"Executive Engineer vs Raju Banduji Raut on 30 March, 2009\",\"datePublished\":\"2009-03-29T18:30:00+00:00\",\"dateModified\":\"2018-08-05T23:57:31+00:00\",\"mainEntityOfPage\":{\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/executive-engineer-vs-raju-banduji-raut-on-30-march-2009\"},\"wordCount\":2076,\"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\\\/executive-engineer-vs-raju-banduji-raut-on-30-march-2009#respond\"]}]},{\"@type\":\"WebPage\",\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/executive-engineer-vs-raju-banduji-raut-on-30-march-2009\",\"url\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/executive-engineer-vs-raju-banduji-raut-on-30-march-2009\",\"name\":\"Executive Engineer vs Raju Banduji Raut on 30 March, 2009 - Free Judgements of Supreme Court & High Court | Legal India\",\"isPartOf\":{\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/#website\"},\"datePublished\":\"2009-03-29T18:30:00+00:00\",\"dateModified\":\"2018-08-05T23:57:31+00:00\",\"breadcrumb\":{\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/executive-engineer-vs-raju-banduji-raut-on-30-march-2009#breadcrumb\"},\"inLanguage\":\"en-US\",\"potentialAction\":[{\"@type\":\"ReadAction\",\"target\":[\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/executive-engineer-vs-raju-banduji-raut-on-30-march-2009\"]}]},{\"@type\":\"BreadcrumbList\",\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/executive-engineer-vs-raju-banduji-raut-on-30-march-2009#breadcrumb\",\"itemListElement\":[{\"@type\":\"ListItem\",\"position\":1,\"name\":\"Home\",\"item\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/\"},{\"@type\":\"ListItem\",\"position\":2,\"name\":\"Executive Engineer vs Raju Banduji Raut on 30 March, 2009\"}]},{\"@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":"Executive Engineer vs Raju Banduji Raut on 30 March, 2009 - 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\/executive-engineer-vs-raju-banduji-raut-on-30-march-2009","og_locale":"en_US","og_type":"article","og_title":"Executive Engineer vs Raju Banduji Raut on 30 March, 2009 - Free Judgements of Supreme Court & High Court | Legal India","og_url":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/executive-engineer-vs-raju-banduji-raut-on-30-march-2009","og_site_name":"Free Judgements of Supreme Court & High Court | Legal India","article_publisher":"https:\/\/www.facebook.com\/LegalindiaCom\/","article_published_time":"2009-03-29T18:30:00+00:00","article_modified_time":"2018-08-05T23:57:31+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":"14 minutes"},"schema":{"@context":"https:\/\/schema.org","@graph":[{"@type":"Article","@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/executive-engineer-vs-raju-banduji-raut-on-30-march-2009#article","isPartOf":{"@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/executive-engineer-vs-raju-banduji-raut-on-30-march-2009"},"author":{"name":"Legal India Admin","@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/#\/schema\/person\/0bfdffe9059fb8bb24a86d094609c5ea"},"headline":"Executive Engineer vs Raju Banduji Raut on 30 March, 2009","datePublished":"2009-03-29T18:30:00+00:00","dateModified":"2018-08-05T23:57:31+00:00","mainEntityOfPage":{"@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/executive-engineer-vs-raju-banduji-raut-on-30-march-2009"},"wordCount":2076,"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\/executive-engineer-vs-raju-banduji-raut-on-30-march-2009#respond"]}]},{"@type":"WebPage","@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/executive-engineer-vs-raju-banduji-raut-on-30-march-2009","url":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/executive-engineer-vs-raju-banduji-raut-on-30-march-2009","name":"Executive Engineer vs Raju Banduji Raut on 30 March, 2009 - Free Judgements of Supreme Court & High Court | Legal India","isPartOf":{"@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/#website"},"datePublished":"2009-03-29T18:30:00+00:00","dateModified":"2018-08-05T23:57:31+00:00","breadcrumb":{"@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/executive-engineer-vs-raju-banduji-raut-on-30-march-2009#breadcrumb"},"inLanguage":"en-US","potentialAction":[{"@type":"ReadAction","target":["https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/executive-engineer-vs-raju-banduji-raut-on-30-march-2009"]}]},{"@type":"BreadcrumbList","@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/executive-engineer-vs-raju-banduji-raut-on-30-march-2009#breadcrumb","itemListElement":[{"@type":"ListItem","position":1,"name":"Home","item":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/"},{"@type":"ListItem","position":2,"name":"Executive Engineer vs Raju Banduji Raut on 30 March, 2009"}]},{"@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\/34496","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=34496"}],"version-history":[{"count":0,"href":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/posts\/34496\/revisions"}],"wp:attachment":[{"href":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/media?parent=34496"}],"wp:term":[{"taxonomy":"category","embeddable":true,"href":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/categories?post=34496"},{"taxonomy":"post_tag","embeddable":true,"href":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/tags?post=34496"}],"curies":[{"name":"wp","href":"https:\/\/api.w.org\/{rel}","templated":true}]}}