The Nagar Panchayat Mantha vs Suresh Limbaji Ghanwat

A) Petitioner is a local self-body formed under the provisions of the Maharashtra Municipal Councils, Nagar Panchayats and Industrial Townships Act 1965. Previously, it was a Village Panchayat formed under the provisions of the Maharashtra Village Panchayat Act 1959. However, on account of acquiring the qualification for conversion to Municipal Council, it turned to be Municipal Council.

B) On 01-03-2015, the then Village Panchayat appointed the respondents on their respective posts by Village Panchayat resolutions. On conversion of village panchayat to municipal council, the respondent employees were made to work as Recovery Clerk till 31-12-2017. On 31-12-2017. The employees were asked not to come on duty. Thus, this constituted otherwise termination of the respondents/employees at the hands of the Petitioner.

C) Details of each employee i.e. Respondent in each matter are as follows:-

All Respondents/Employees were appointed on a common date i.e. 01-03-2015 by Resolutions of the then Mantha Village Panchayat. They were terminated also on a common date i.e. 31-12-2017.

D) The employees/respondents filed their respective References in the court of Learned Judge of Labour Court Jalna u/s 2(A) of the Industrial Disputes Act.

E) Learned Judge of the Labour Court conducted Trials, scrutinized the evidence, heard the parties, and partly allowed the References by directing the Petitioner to re-instate the respondents with 20% back wages.

F) Thus, the Employer is before this court challenging the Judgments and Orders passed in each Reference.

Learned advocate Mr. Dhobale for the Petitioner submits that,

There was no employer-employee relationship between the Petitioner and the Respondents;

The Respondents voluntarily abandoned their respective duties in the year 2015 itself;

Fact that the Respondents served with the Petitioner till the end of 2017 is denied;

Respondents’ reinstatement would amount to backdoor Supreme Court in the case of ‘Umadevi’.

Labour Court wrongly appreciated the documents on record and also mis-appreciated the evidence. Particularly the Labour court erred in not accepting that the Muster roll during 01-04-2017 to 31-12-2017 was bogus. The Labour Court also wrongly neglected Petitioner’s case that Petitioner’s witness deposed in Respondent’s favor under political pressure.

Impugned Judgments and Orders are liable to be quashed and set aside.

Mr.Radhakrishna Ingole Patil, learned advocate for the respondents -employees submits thus:

Learned Judge of the Labour Court has passed the Judgments and Orders with reasoned findings;

On facts, the Petitioner could not assail Respondents’ case. The Respondents proved that they had worked continuously for more than 240 days, and hence the Labour Court has rightly passed the Judgments and Orders.

Petitioners’ witness candidly and truly admitted that the Respondents were serving with the Petitioner till 2017. The reasons tendered by the Petitioner that the said witness deposed under political pressure, has been correctly discarded by the Labour court for the reasons recorded.

Approach of the Petitioner towards to the Respondents is clearly vindictive, and must not be tolerated. That, despite directions of the Labour Court to re-instate, the Petitioner has disorderly avoided to reinstate the respondents only on the pretext of pendency of this Writ Petition.

With this, it is prayed to dismiss the Writ Petitions.

At the outset it requires to be noted that although in Writ Petition pleading the Petitioner denied employer-employee relationship, the same is absolutely wrong and contrary to the case put by the Petitioner during the Trial.

Petitioner’s case is that the respondents worked during 01-03-2015 till 31-12-2015 only for a period of 190 days. For want of service of 240 days, the Petitioner denies the claim raised by the respondents. It is the case of the Petitioner that the respondents voluntarily left the services w.e.f. 31-12-2015, and that therefore the claim was erroneous. Thus, there is employer-employee relationship between the Petitioner and the respondents. The only issue is that whether the respondents served for 240 days or not i.e. whether the respondents served after 31-12-2015 making the work days at least 240 days.

In each case at Exh.U-11, the respondents/employees filed on record copies of the muster roll which show that each respondent worked till December 2017 on their respective post. The muster roll and attendance register contained signatures of each respondent/employee. Except bare denial to those documents, the Petitioner neither could brush out the said evidence by tendering independent evidence, nor could rebut the evidence tendered by the respondents.

It is pertinent to note that the respondents/employees filed on record at Exh.U-11 i.e. copies of the muster roll, and attendance register. The Petitioner then raised objection and undertook to file correct muster roll and attendance register to counter the documents filed by the respondents. It was undertaken that such documents shall be filed at Petitioner’s evidence stage in the Trial. However, the Petitioner didn’t file any of such document. Thus, I find the Labour Court rightly disapproved Petitioner’s defense that the documents tendered on record by the respondents/employees were bogus.

I find the Labour Court rightly observed that this evidence not only shows that the respondents worked for the period of April 2017 to December 2017, but it cannot be said that they worked only for such period. This is for the reason that as per Petitioner’s contention, the respondents left the services on 31-12-2015. It is not Petitioner’s case that the respondents merely worked for some months in 2017.

Petitioner’s conduct during the Trial plays vital roll to define truthfulness of its defense. The Petitioner disputed the Exh.U-11 documents (muster roll and attendance register) to be bogus. However, it is pertinent to note that the said documents are in fact produced on record by the Petitioner itself before the Labour Officer during the hearing before the Labour Officer. Thus evidently, the defense is not with clean hands. This falsifies Petitioner’s objection that the said documents were bogus, and that the Labour Court erringly relied upon them.

The most pertinent thing is, Petitioner’s witness namely Suresh Bhandwale agreed that the muster roll and attendance register showing respondents’ signature also bear his own signature. However he submitted that he signed the documents under ‘political pressure’. Thus, existence and contents of those documents are accepted by the Petitioner. However, the objection that the signatures of Petitioners’ witness were made under political pressure carries absolutely no legal significance. Absolutely, no explanation as to details of the alleged ‘political pressure’ is advanced by the Petitioner, nor there is anything to show that what consequential events and actions were conducted by the authorities. Even no steps were taken against the so-called bogus entries.

Thus, it is clear like a sunlight that the respondents worked with the Petitioner even after 31-12-2015 and completed at least 240 days of the service.

There are certain office orders issued to each of the respondent in each Writ Petition, which show that each respondent worked at Petitioner even after 31-12-2015. For clarification, the documents are mentioned as below:-

Although the Petitioner disagree with everything, it could not prove that the said documents were not issued by the authorities of the Petitioner or those were bogus. Learned Judge of the Labour Court rightly observed at paragraph Nos. 30 and 35 of each Judgment that the pleadings of employer are contrary to the evidence. In fact all these documents tendered by the respective employee in each of the Reference clearly show that they were working even after 31-12-2015, and have not left the jobs unlike the case put up by the Petitioner.

I do not find any infirmity or error in the well-reasoned finding recorded by the Learned Judge of the Labour Court Jalna in this regard in any case. The Labour Court is absolutely justified in holding that the respondents/employees must be held to have worked with the Petitioner for at least 240 days. Grant of back wages at the rate of 20% with continuity benefit are also justified for the reasons recorded in the Judgment.

This is a Labour case governed by the principles of Industrial Disputes Act. The employees never sought for regularization. On facts it has come on record that the Respondent employee worked at Petitioner for more than 240 days. The employees were appointed by the then Local Body, i.e. the Village Panchayat as per the procedure by a village panchayat resolution. The controversy arose once the local body converted to Nagar Parishad. Even after conversion of local body’s nature, the employees were in continuous employment. There is nothing on record to show that the Petitioner employer lawfully terminated the respondents. The prayer clauses in the References show that the employees challenged the termination and sought re-instatement with back wages. Hence, the law laid down in Umadevi case (supra) shall be of no avail to the Petitioner.

Since after the Labour Court delivered its Judgments and Orders way back on 27-02-2023, the Petitioner did not comply the directions of re-instatement and payment of back wages. Before the hearing could begin, I asked the learned advocate for the Petitioner as to the compliance of the impugned Judgment and Order, since this court never stayed execution and operation of the impugned Judgment and Order. Yes, the Petitioner certainly have right to assail the findings rendered by the Labour Court. However being a public body, it was incumbent on the part of the Petitioner to first obey the directions passed by the Labour Court if no interim relief was granted by this Court. It was disorderly responded that since the Writ Petitions were pending, the Petitioner did not comply the directions. This is apparently a contemptuous conduct of the Petitioner. For the reasons recorded, I am disposed to think that in the fitness of circumstances, the Petitions must be dismissed with exemplary cost.

I. Writ Petitions are dismissed with cost of Rs.10,000/- in each Writ Petition.

II. Within two weeks from today the petitioners shall reinstate each respondent on their respective/corresponding post and shall pay the back wages.

III. Cost be deposited in this Court within a period of Four weeks from today. On failure to deposit the cost, the same be recovered as land revenue.

IV. On deposit of the cost, the respondent in each Writ Petition shall be entitle to withdraw the same.

V. Rule discharged.