AI Structured Summary
Not yet generated for this judgment
Judgment
. Heard.
By this petition, the challenge is to the judgment and order passed by the Industrial Court, Nagpur, in Revision Application No.283/2010 arising out of the judgment and order passed by learned 4th Labour Court, Nagpur in Complaint ULP No.149/2001.
The learned Industrial Court, by the impugned judgment and order, modified the judgment of the Labour Court to the extent that the employees/labourers are not entitled to back wages, and accordingly, that portion of the Labour Court’s order was quashed and set aside. The petitioners were directed to reinstate the respondents, except the complainant Deorao Govind Choudhari, with continuity of service and full back wages from 29.03.2010 until the date of reinstatement.
In view of the challenge to the judgment and order of the Industrial Court arising out of the Labour Court’s decision, some brief facts need to be considered in the present matter.
The petitioners had engaged a permanent agricultural labourer to carry out agricultural and research activities. However, during the rainy season and the harvesting period of agricultural produce, additional casual, daily-wage, temporary employees were required. Accordingly, respondent Nos. 1 to 17 were engaged as casual, temporary, daily-wage, seasonal labourers to carry out seasonal agricultural research activities. According to the petitioners, they were not engaged or appointed to any permanent post after following the due process of law.
In the year 2001, the State of Maharashtra has resolved a policy to diminish and reduce surplus labourers. Accordingly respondents were served retrenchment notice dated 15.02.2001 whereby there were intended and proposed to be terminated w.e.f. 31.03.2001. Respondents challenged their retrenchment before Labour Court on the ground that without following due procedure as contemplated under the Industrial Dispute Act and further without following rule of seniority, action is taken in the matter. Hence, seeks reinstatement with continuity of service.
The learned Labour Court, by its judgment and order dated 29.03.2010, allowed the complaint filed by the respondents and directed the petitioners to reinstate the respondents in service with continuity and full back wages along with all other consequential benefits.
This judgment of the Labour Court was challenged by the petitioners before the Industrial Court, Nagpur. The learned Industrial Court, after considering the submissions made by the petitioner–University, partly allowed the revision. Industrial Court has set aside the direction regarding payment of back wages and confirmed the reinstatement by observing specifically that the respondent–employees had failed to plead and prove before the Labour Court the efforts made by them to secure employment. It was also recorded that the respondents had not brought on record any evidence nor attempts have been made by them to secure employment after their termination in 2001.
The judgment of Industrial Court is now under challenge before this Court by the petitioner–University. By order dated 05.02.2019, this Court granted stay to the judgment and order of the Industrial Court, and the stay is in operation till date.
Both learned counsel have fairly pointed out to this Court that, during the pendency of the present petition, the respondents, who were working as daily-wage/temporary employees have attained the age of superannuation. Therefore, they cannot now be reinstated in service, even if the orders of the Labour Court and the Industrial Court are restored by this Court. Accordingly, the only issue that now remains is their entitlement to gratuity.
A perusal of the judgments of the Labour Court and the Industrial Court regarding the grant of reinstatement makes it clear that both courts considered the evidence available on record and applied the law laid down by this Court as well as by the Hon’ble Supreme Court. It is rightly held that the respondents had completed 240 days of continuous service prior to the date of their termination and, therefore, they are entitled to the protection available in cases of retrenchment upon completion of 240 days of service.
It is further held that the retrenchment on the ground of abolition of posts, for which a notice of change was given, was found to be in non-compliance with the provisions of the Industrial Disputes Act. Likewise, the compensation paid to the complainants was found not to be in conformity with the law.
It is also recorded that the seniority list was not properly prepared on the basis of the number of days worked during the entire tenure, and therefore, while retrenching the respondents, the procedure prescribed under the provisions of law was not followed.
It is further recorded by both the courts below that the complainants had been in the employment of the petitioners for a period ranging from 17 to 25 years until 2001, the year of their termination. Therefore, considering their long tenure of service, the retrenchment of their services without following due procedure of law is certainly illegal. Accordingly, after recording cogent reasons, the learned Industrial Court directed that the respondents be reinstated in service.
After perusal of the judgment of Industrial Court, I am satisfied that learned Court below by applying judicial mind decided the matter. Therefore, interference of this Court is not necessary to the findings recorded by Industrial Court.
As stated by both parties, since the respondents have attained the age of superannuation, it is not possible for the petitioners to reinstate them in service. Only the issue of gratuity remains to be considered in the matter. Considering the reasons recorded in the impugned order, it is clear that their retrenchment in the year 2001 was not carried out by following the due procedure of law. Hence present petition deserved to be dismissed.
However, as it is clear from record that respondents have already attained the age of superannuation and the Industrial Court has directed to reinstate them in the service, in my view they are entitled for the gratuity and for that purpose petitioners university should take necessary steps to grant continuity of service as per the judgment of Industrial Court and accordingly release their gratuity as expeditious as possible and in any case within two months.
The Writ Petition stands disposed of in above terms. No order as to the costs.