1 WP 5416.11 IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY NAGPUR BENCH : NAGPUR WRIT PETITION NO.5416 OF 2011 Jumma Rannu Choudhari, Aged about Major, Resident of Galipura, Digras, Dist. Yavatmal. .. Petitioner ..Versus.. 1) Divisional Forest Officer, Division Digras, District-Yavatmal. 2) The Deputy Conservator of Forest, Forest Department, Pusad, Yavatmal. 3) The Chief Conservator of Forest, Yavatmal. 4) Member, Industrial Court at Yavatmal. .. Respondents ……………. Mr. Sahil M. Mate, Advocate h/f Mr. Abhishek A. Zade, Advocate for Petitioner. Ms. D.V. Sapkal, AGP for Respondent Nos.2 to 4. …………… CORAM : PRAVIN S. PATIL, J. DATED : 29.09.2026. Petn. Dismissed against R-1 Vide Registrar Order dt.25-9- 13. Amendment carried out as per court’s order dated 24.11.2011 2026:BHC-NAG:13263 2 WP 5416.11 JUDGMENT 1. By this petition, the petitioner-employee challenged the impugned judgment and order dated 02.02.2011 passed by the Industrial Court, Yavatmal in Complaint (ULP) No.25/2006 whereby the complaint filed by the petitioner-employee was dismissed. 2. It is pointed out by the petitioner that he entered into the services of the respondent-establishment on 01.08.1990. After joining the services, he has rendered three years service as a Chowkidar/Watchman in the establishment of the respondents. However, on 16.06.1993, his services were orally terminated by the respondents, which were challenged by the petitioner before the Labour Court, Yavatmal vide Complaint ULP No.578/1994. The said complaint was allowed by the learned Labour Court vide judgment dated 19.08.1996 by declaring that the respondents engaged in unfair labour practice under Item No.1 Schedule IV of the Maharashtra Recognition of Trade Unions and Prevention of Unfair Labour Practices Act, 1971 (MRTU & PULP Act) and directed to reinstate the petitioner with continuity of service and back-wages for 3 WP 5416.11 intervening period. 3. The petitioner thereafter came to be reinstated in the service on 01.11.2006. After the reinstatement in the service, the respondent no.2 issued a letter dated 29.03.2006 informing that at Digras Forest Division which comes under the Pusad Forest Division, no land work is available and, therefore, with a view to make available the daily wages to the petitioner, he was asked to work of digging and preparing bed at Central Plant Gardening, Singad and also stated that his salary will be paid as per the work done by him. 4. The petitioner challenged the said order of the respondent no.2 before the Industrial Court by Complaint ULP No.25/2006. The respondents in the said complaint have taken a stand that petitioner has never worked as a Chowkidar and he was working as a daily-wager. It is their submission that he was reinstated as a daily-wager on 01.11.2006 and he has rendered the work of daily wager up to 05.01.2007. Thereafter, as the work was not available, the communication dated 29.03.2006 was issued to him so that he should get the 4 WP 5416.11 perennial work at Central Plant Gardening. In view of this submission of the rival parties, the learned Industrial Court, Yavatmal by the impugned judgment dismissed the complaint by upholding the submission of the respondents-department. 5. The petitioner, who approached before this court, has pointed out that the judgment passed by the learned Labour Court, Yavatmal dated 19.08.1996 in Complaint ULP No.578/1994 has attended the finality as same was not challenged by the respondents-department before any other court of law. Hence, the said order till date holding the field. Therefore, when the learned Labour Court has directed to reinstate him on the post i.e. Chowkidar with continuity of service, there was no reason for respondents treating him as a daily-wager. 6. The petitioner further stated that before Labour Court in Complaint (ULP) No.578/1994, respondent admitted that he was working as Chowkidar and same was recorded in the judgment of Labour Court. To substantiate this submission has pointed out from the order of the Labour Court dated 5 WP 5416.11 19.08.1996 that the respondents-department has categorically admitted that the petitioner has worked as a Chowkidar from 01.08.1990. 7. It is further pertinent to note that in the said proceeding, the petitioner has asked the respondents to produce his muster roll to confirm his date of appointment, but said documents were not produced by the respondent-department, hence the learned Labour court by considering the fact that the junior persons who are shown in the seniority list are working in the department, his date of appointment was considered as a 01.08.1991. The learned Labour Court due to non production of the relevant documents has drawn adverse inference in the said matter and recorded the finding that the petitioner was working as a Chowkidar and not as a Labourer. 8. In view of the above said finding, it is the submission of the petitioner that the learned Industrial Court ought to have given weightage to this admitted fact as the said order was produced by the petitioner and made a specific averment in his complaint in the matter. However, learned Industrial Court has 6 WP 5416.11 recorded a perverse finding that no documentary proof has been filed on record as to on which post the petitioner was working and in what way he was being paid salary. According to Industrial Court there is a falsehood in the statement of the petitioner and thereby did not consider his submission made in the complaint. 9. The petitioner also stated that by the impugned communication dated 29.03.2006 the respondent has changed his nature of duties and, therefore, Notice under Section 9 of the Industrial Disputes Act was necessary in the matter. However, no such notice was any time issued to him in the matter. On all these counts, his submission is that the impugned judgment passed by the Industrial Court is illegal. 10. The learned AGP has defended the order passed by the Industrial Court. According to the learned AGP, after the order passed by the Labour Court, he was reinstated as a Labourer and not as a Chowkidar. According to the respondent- department, he has worked as a Labourer up to 05.01.2007 and thereafter as there was no work was available for him, 7 WP 5416.11 therefore, the communication dated 29.03.2006 was issued in the matter. Hence, it is the submission of the respondent- department that the said communication was issued with a bonafide impression that the petitioner should get the regular employment, hence there is no unfair labour practice committed by them as alleged by the petitioner. 11. After hearing both the parties in the present petition, it is undisputed fact that the Labour Court in the judgment dated 19.08.1996 in Complaint ULP No.578/1994 by recording the fact that the respondent has admitted that the complainant was appointed as a Chowkidar and also by considering the evidence which was made available reached to the conclusion that the complainant was working as a Chowkidar but not as Labourer. The said judgment which is holding the field ought to have been considered by the learned Industrial Court in the matter. However, the Industrial Court failed to consider the judgment of the Labour Court while deciding the matter. 12. The respondent-department, who is an ideal employer, is supposed to came with a positive submission before any court 8 WP 5416.11 of law. The respondent-department once admitted before the competent court of law that the petitioner was appointed as a Chowkidar, they were not permitted to change their stand and state that he was appointed as a Labourer in the department. This stand itself is contrary in two proceedings filed by the same employer, therefore, such submission of the respondent- department prima facie cannot be accepted in the facts and circumstances of the case. 13. In the present case, though the order of the Labour Court was in favour of the petitioner and he was directed to be reinstated, the respondent to avoid that responsibility seems to have issued the communication dated 29.3.2006 and asked him to join the services as a Labour at Singad Garden at Pusad. Therefore, considering this fact of the matter, in my opinion, the petitioner is entitled for the relief sought in the present petition. 14. The petitioner, however, pointed out that the petitioner has attended the age of superannuation in the year 2014. Therefore, he could not be reinstated in the present matter. 9 WP 5416.11 However, in the present case, because of the impugned order dated 29.03.2006 the petitioner was required to file the complaint before the Industrial Court and same remain pending up to year 2011. After that he has to approach before this court by the present petition. The present petition though filed in the year 2011 has taken up for final hearing in the year 2026. Therefore, in the facts and circumstances, the petitioner- employee who was not at fault is certainly held entitled for the compensation by the respondent-department in the matter. 15. The learned AGP, however, opposed to grant any compensation to the petitioner on the ground that after the reinstatement as a Labourer on 01.11.2006 he has worked only up to 5.1.2007 and since then he is not in employment. In this regard, it would be pertinent to note that it is the respondent who had issued the communication dated 29.03.2006 to ask him to work as a Labourer though there is an order of competent court of law to work as a Chowkidar. The respondent-department is responsible for allotting the work contrary to the order of this court. The respondent-department ought to have allowed him the work as a Chowkidar or they 10 WP 5416.11 have a remedy to challenge the order passed by the learned Labour Court before the competent court of law. However, the respondent-department neither challenged the order of the Labour Court nor reinstated him as a ‘Chowkidar’. 16. The record further shows that the petitioner has also required to file proceeding under Section 33(C)(2) of the Industrial Disputes Act for claiming the backwages which was not paid to him in pursuance of the order of the Labour Court. 17. In the circumstances, the objection of the learned AGP for awarding the compensation to the petitioner is without any basis and same cannot be accepted in the matter. In view of above, the following order is passed : O R D E R (i) The writ petition is partly allowed. (ii) The impugned judgment and order passed by the Industrial Court, Yavatmal dated 02.02.2011 in Complaint (ULP) No.25/2006 is quashed and set aside. (iii) The impugned communication dated 29.03.2006 issued by the respondents is hereby quashed and set aside. (iv) In view of the fact that Petitioner has attended the age of superannuation, instead of reinstatement as a Chowkidar, respondents are directed to pay lump sum 11 WP 5416.11 compensation of Rs.5,00,000/- to the petitioner within eight weeks from the date of production of this order by the petitioner to the respondents. (v) No order as to costs. (Pravin S. Patil, J.) Gulande Signed by: A.S. GULANDE Designation: Senior Pvt. Secretary Date: 06/10/2026 15:23:31