Case Note & Summary
The appellant, Bhandara District Central Cooperative Bank Limited, challenged an order of the learned Single Judge dismissing its Writ Petition and issuing certain additional directions. The dispute arose from an Industrial Court award granting 50% back wages to the respondent workman, Raju Udaram Borkar, from 4.11.2001 until reinstatement. In the Writ Petition, the workman consented to waive the entire back wages in exchange for reinstatement on regular establishment within six months. The learned Single Judge set aside the award of 50% back wages, directed reinstatement within eight weeks, and added that if the workman was not brought on regular establishment within six months, the order setting aside back wages would automatically become operative. The Bank appealed, arguing that this additional direction was beyond the scope of Article 226. The Division Bench heard the appeal and examined the impugned direction. It noted that the direction was contingent and recorded the workman's concession. The Court held that the direction was not a modification of the Industrial Court's order nor a direction under Article 226, but merely a recording of the workman's offer. The Bank could choose not to regularize the workman and forgo the concession, and defend any future claim. Finding no infirmity, the Division Bench dismissed the appeal with no order as to costs.
Headnote
A) Service Law - Reinstatement and Regularization - Contingent Order - The learned Single Judge recorded the workman's offer to waive back wages if reinstated on regular establishment within six months, and directed that if not regularized, the waiver order would automatically become operative. The Division Bench held that this was a contingent offer recorded by the Court, not a modification of the Industrial Court's order, and the Bank could choose not to regularize and forgo the concession. (Paras 5-8)
B) Constitutional Law - Article 226 - Scope of Direction - The direction was not per se a modification of the Industrial Court's order nor analogous to one under Article 226, but a recording of the workman's concession. The Bank was free to stick to its stand and defend any future claim. (Paras 7-8)
Issue of Consideration
Whether the learned Single Judge's direction regarding reinstatement and regularization of the workman, contingent upon waiver of back wages, was a valid exercise of power under Article 226 of the Constitution of India.
Final Decision
The Letters Patent Appeal is dismissed. The parties are directed to bear their own costs.
Law Points
- Contingent order
- Reinstatement
- Regularization
- Back wages waiver
- Article 226 of the Constitution of India
Case Details
2010 LawText (BOM) (01) 225
Letters Patent Appeal No. 454 of 2009 in Writ Petition No. 2209 of 2009
A.H. Joshi, Prasanna B. Varale
Mr. A.M. Ghare for appellant, Mrs. A.R. Taiwade for respondent no. 1, Mr. N.S. Talmale for respondent no. 2
The Bhandara District Central Cooperative Bank Limited
Member, Industrial Court, Bhandara; Shri Raju Udaram Borkar
Subscribe to unlock Case Details (Citation, Judge, Date & more)
Subscribe Now
Nature of Litigation
Letters Patent Appeal against order of learned Single Judge dismissing Writ Petition and issuing additional directions regarding reinstatement and regularization of workman.
Remedy Sought
Appellant Bank sought to challenge the additional direction of the learned Single Judge that if the workman is not brought on regular establishment within six months, the order setting aside back wages would automatically become operative.
Filing Reason
The appellant Bank felt aggrieved by the contingent direction that if the workman is not regularized within six months, the waiver of back wages would automatically become operative.
Previous Decisions
Industrial Court awarded 50% back wages from 4.11.2001 till reinstatement. Learned Single Judge set aside that award on workman's consent to waive back wages, directed reinstatement within eight weeks, and added contingent direction regarding regularization.
Issues
Whether the learned Single Judge's direction regarding reinstatement and regularization of the workman, contingent upon waiver of back wages, was a valid exercise of power under Article 226 of the Constitution of India.
Submissions/Arguments
Appellant argued that the additional direction was beyond the scope of Article 226 and amounted to modification of the Industrial Court's order.
Respondent workman consented to waive back wages in exchange for regularization.
Ratio Decidendi
The direction recorded by the learned Single Judge was a contingent offer from the workman, not a modification of the Industrial Court's order nor a direction under Article 226. The Bank could choose not to regularize and forgo the concession, and defend any future claim.
Judgment Excerpts
It is seen from the purport of the order that if the regularization of his employment is done, in consideration thereof, the workman has offered to lose the back wages and this concession of the workman is recorded.
The portion which aggrieves the appellant is thus a contingent offer received from the respondent and is recorded by the Court. Said is not per se modification of an order passed by the Industrial Court, nor can it be termed as a direction, analogous to one passed under Article 226 of the Constitution of India.
Procedural History
Industrial Court awarded 50% back wages to workman. Workman filed Writ Petition No. 2209 of 2009. Learned Single Judge dismissed the petition and issued additional directions. Appellant Bank filed Letters Patent Appeal No. 454 of 2009 against that order.
Acts & Sections
- Constitution of India: Article 226
