W.P. No. 951 of 2009. Case: Dwarkabai and Ors. Vs Deputy Van Saurakshak Vanvibhag, Amravati and Ors.. High Court of Bombay (India)
| Case Number | W.P. No. 951 of 2009 |
| Counsel | For Appellant: N.R. Saboo, Advocate and For Respondents: P.A. Gode, Advocate and K.L. Dharmadhikari, A.G.P. |
| Judges | R. K. Deshpande, J. |
| Issue | Maharashtra Recognition of Trade Union & Prevention of Unfair Labour Practices Act, 1971 - Section 28 |
| Citation | 2015 (IV) LLJ 240 Bom |
| Judgement Date | September 01, 2015 |
| Court | High Court of Bombay (India) |
Judgment:
R. K. Deshpande, J.
-
In complaint (ULP) No. 103 of 2004 filed by the petitioners invoking jurisdiction of the Industrial Court under Section 28 read with Item 5 and 9 of Schedule IV of the Maharashtra Recognition of Trade Unions and Prevention of Unfair Labour Practices Act, 1971 (for short "MRTU & PULP Act"), a declaration was claimed that the respondents are engaged in an unfair labour practices under Items 5 and 9, along with the relief of grant of pension upon completion of their qualifying service on the establishment of the respondents. The complaint has been dismissed by the Industrial Court by its judgment and order dated 24.09.2008. Hence, the present petition is filed by the original complainants. The Industrial Court has recorded the finding that the complainants have failed to establish that they have completed ten years of qualifying service so as to become entitled to get the pension. The finding is that the complainants were appointed to hold the post of Van Mazdoor w.e.f. 01.11.1994 as per the Government Resolution dated 31.01.1996 and before completion of period of ten years from that date they have attained the age of superannuation. The complainant No. 1 retired from service on 31.05.2004, the complainant No. 2 retired from service on 31.05.2004 and the complainant No. 3 retired on 31.03.2004. The Industrial Court has held that the complainants have failed to make out a case for counting of half of the previous continuous service rendered on daily wages from 21.03.1977, 01.07.1986 and 01.04.1979. According to the Industrial Court, in order to count such service the complainants were required to establish in terms of Note No. 1 under Rule 57 of the Maharashtra Civil Services (Pension) Rules, 1982 ("Pension Rules" for short) that they were being paid as daily wagers from the contingency fund, and there is no evidence brought on record to show that they were so paid, but the respondents have brought on record the evidence to show that the complainants were paid under the head "02 Wages".
-
Shri Saboo, the learned counsel appearing for the petitioners/complainants has relied upon the Division Bench judgment of this Court in Parshuram Vithoba Bhandare v. State of Maharashtra and Another 2002 I CLR 228: LNIND 2001 BOM 590: 2002-IV-LLJ-1053, for the proposition that even the service rendered as a daily wager prior to the date of bringing the employee on regular establishment can be counted towards qualifying...
To continue reading
Request your trial