Writ Petition No. 8733 of 2014. Case: Saraswati Sopan Tanpure and Ors. Vs The Superintendent, Zillha Krushi Adhikari and Ors.. High Court of Bombay (India)

Case NumberWrit Petition No. 8733 of 2014
CounselFor Appellant: S.T. Shelke, Advocate and For Respondents: D.R. Korde, AGP
JudgesR. V. Ghuge, J.
IssueIndustrial Disputes Act, 1947 - Section 33(C)(2)
Judgement DateMarch 02, 2016
CourtHigh Court of Bombay (India)

Judgment:

R. V. Ghuge, J.

  1. Rule. Rule made returnable forthwith and heard finally by the consent of the parties.

  2. The issue raised by the petitioners-employees is as to 'whether the grant of permanency by the Industrial Court with arrears and all monetary benefits, would also include payment of wages for the period during which the petitioners had not worked and had not earned their wages?'

  3. The petitioner is aggrieved by the judgment of the Labour Court dated 11.07.2014 by which Application IDA No. 2/2006 seeking recovery of money due from an employer, has been dismissed.

  4. Mr. Shelke, learned Counsel for the petitioners strenuously criticizes the impugned judgment of the Labour Court. He contends that these petitioners were parties to Complaint ULP Nos. 218/1992 and 15/1997 which were filed before the Industrial Court, Ahmednagar through their union viz. Ahmednagar Zillha Shetmajoor Union, Shrirampur under the M.R.T.U. & P.U.L.P. Act, 1971. These complaints were allowed by the Industrial Court by its judgment dated 28.04.2003. The Industrial Court directed the respondents to forward the proposals of the petitioners for confirmation and the deemed date for confirmation was 28.04.2000 which is three years prior to delivering the judgment dated 28.04.2003.

  5. Mr. Shelke further submits that the respondents preferred Writ Petition Nos. 4806/2003 and 4807/2003 for challenging the judgment of the Industrial Court. By judgment dated 14.01.2004, both the writ petitions filed by the respondents were dismissed.

  6. He submits that since the respondent-establishment did not pay all the arrears as directed by the Industrial Court, it preferred Application IDA No. 2/2006 under Section 33(C)(2) of the Industrial Disputes Act, 1947 claiming recovery of money due from the employer. He submits that the Labour Court has considered that the respondent had paid the dues only to some extent to the petitioners. However, though the arrears to be paid for the period 24.08.2000 till 15.10.2005, has not been paid, the Labour Court has rejected the application of the petitioners.

  7. Mr. Shelke has taken me through the impugned judgment and the record available to contend that the impugned judgment is perverse and erroneous.

  8. He further submits that when the Industrial Court directed payment of arrears, it was in relation to the period from 28.04.2000 onwards. It is insignificant as to whether the petitioners worked in the said period or have not been working...

To continue reading

Request your trial

VLEX uses login cookies to provide you with a better browsing experience. If you click on 'Accept' or continue browsing this site we consider that you accept our cookie policy. ACCEPT