J-WP-792-25.... 1/15 IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY NAGPUR BENCH, NAGPUR. WRIT PETITION NO.792 OF 2025 1. Kulasachiv, Dr Punjabrao Deshmukh, Krishi Vidyapeeth, Krushi Nagar, Akoa, Tq. Dist. Akola 2. Head of Department, Javar Sanshodan Kendra, Dr Panjabrao Deshmukh Krushi Vidyapeeth, Akola, Tq & Dist. Akola … Petitioners -vs- Panchphula Rambhau Shinde Age about 68 years, Occ. Labour R/o Shivar, Tq. & Dist. Akola Akola … Respondent WRIT PETITION NO.793 OF 2025 1. Kulasachiv, Dr Punjabrao Deshmukh, Krishi Vidyapeeth, Krushi Nagar, Akoa, Tq. Dist. Akola 2. Head of Department, Javar Sanshodan Kendra, Dr Panjabrao Deshmukh Krushi Vidyapeeth, Akola, Tq & Dist. Akola … Petitioners -vs- Shakuntala Maroti Shinde Age about 68 years, Occ. Labour R/o Near Mahadeo Mandir, Lahan Umari, Tq. & Dist. Akola … Respondent WITH WRIT PETITION NO.790 OF 2025 1. Kulasachiv, Dr Punjabrao Deshmukh, Krishi Vidyapeeth, Krushi Nagar, Akoa, Tq. Dist. Akola 2. Head of Department, Javar Sanshodan Kendra, Dr Panjabrao Deshmukh Krushi Vidyapeeth, Akola, Tq & Dist. Akola … Petitioners -vs- 2026:BHC-NAG:12073 J-WP-792-25.... 2/15 Lila Vasudeo Akhatkar Age about 68 years, Occ. Labour R/o Chakradhar Colony, Mothi Umari, Akola … Respondent WITH WRIT PETITION NO.791 OF 2025 1. Kulasachiv, Dr Punjabrao Deshmukh, Krishi Vidyapeeth, Krushi Nagar, Akoa, Tq. Dist. Akola 2. Head of Department, Javar Sanshodan Kendra, Dr Panjabrao Deshmukh Krushi Vidyapeeth, Akola, Tq & Dist. Akola … Petitioners -vs- Laxmi Sambhaji Pradhan Age about 68 years, Occ. Labour R/o Ward No.4, Khadan Shivani, Taq. & Dist. Akola … Respondent WITH WRIT PETITION NO.795 OF 2025 1. Kulasachiv, Dr Punjabrao Deshmukh, Krishi Vidyapeeth, Krushi Nagar, Akoa, Tq. Dist. Akola 2. Head of Department, Javar Sanshodan Kendra, Dr Panjabrao Deshmukh Krushi Vidyapeeth, Akola, Tq & Dist. Akola … Petitioners -vs- Sindhutai Murlidhar Thakare Age about 68 years, Occ. Labour R/o Sharad Nagar, Shivar, Taq. & Dist. Akola … Respondent WITH WRIT PETITION NO.1162 OF 2025 1. Kulasachiv, Dr Punjabrao Deshmukh, Krishi Vidyapeeth, Krushi Nagar, Akoa, Tq. Dist. Akola 2. Vibhag Pramukh, Krishi Sanshodan Kendra, Washim, Dr Panjabrao Deshmukh Krushi Vidyapeeth, Washim … Petitioners J-WP-792-25.... 3/15 -vs- Shaikh Mehboob Shaikh Abdul, Age about 70 years, R/o Tamsi, Washim Tq. & Dist. Washim … Respondent WITH WRIT PETITION NO.1163 OF 2025 1. Kulasachiv, Dr Punjabrao Deshmukh, Krishi Vidyapeeth, Krushi Nagar, Akoa, Tq. Dist. Akola 2. Vibhag Pramukh, Krishi Sanshodan Kendra, Washim, Dr Panjabrao Deshmukh Krushi Vidyapeeth, Washim … Petitioners -vs- Shriram Narayan Chavan Age about 71 years, R/o Tamsi, Washim Tq. And Dist. Washim … Respondent WITH WRIT PETITION NO.1164 OF 2025 1. Kulasachiv, Dr Punjabrao Deshmukh, Krishi Vidyapeeth, Krushi Nagar, Akoa, Tq. Dist. Akola 2. Chief Seed Production Officer, Central Demonstration Farm, Wanirambhuapur, Tq. Dist. Akola 3. Vibhag Pramukh, Kurankhed Vibhag, Dr Panjabrao Deshmukh Krushi Vidyapeeth, Krushi Nagar, Akola, Tq. Dist. Akola … Petitioners -vs- Mahadeo Dattuji Pilatre, Age about 70 years, R/o Renuka Nagar, Borgaomanju, Tq. & Dist. Akola … Respondent WITH WRIT PETITION NO.1165 OF 2025 1. Kulasachiv, Dr Punjabrao Deshmukh, Krishi Vidyapeeth, Krushi Nagar, Akoa, Tq. Dist. Akola J-WP-792-25.... 4/15 2. Vibhag Pramukh, Krishi Sanshodan Kendra, Washim, Dr Panjabrao Deshmukh Krushi Vidyapeeth, Washim … Petitioners -vs- Suryabhan Rajaram Kalbande, Age about 70 years, R/o Zakalwadi, Post Tamsi Washim Tq. And Dist. Washim 1-a) Smt. Yashoda Wd/o Suryabhan Kalbande, Aged about 65 years. 1-b) Shri Madan S/o Suryabhan Kalbande, Aged about 50 years. 1-c) Shri Sanjay S/o Suryabhan Kalbande, Aged about 42 years, Sr. No.1-a) to 1-c) R/o Zakalwadi, Post Tamsi Tq. And District: Washim. 1-d) Smt. Maina W/o Baban Zamre, Aged about 45 years, R/o At Post Kondala, Tq. And District: Washim. 1-e) Smt. Bebi W/o Bhagwan Muthal, Aged about 40 years, R/o At Post Sonala, Tq. And District: Washim. … Respondents WITH WRIT PETITION NO.1166 OF 2025 1. Kulasachiv, Dr Punjabrao Deshmukh, Krishi Vidyapeeth, Krushi Nagar, Akoa, Tq. Dist. Akola 2. Vibhag Pramukh, Krishi Sanshodan Kendra, Washim, Dr Panjabrao Deshmukh Krushi Vidyapeeth, Washim … Petitioners -vs- Natha Yadav Sarkate Age about 70 years, R/o Samta Nagar, Washim, Tq. And Dist. Washim Added as per amendment order dt.12/03/2026 J-WP-792-25.... 5/15 1-a) Smt. Kusum Wd/o Natha Sarkate, Aged about 66 years, R/o Zakalwadi, Post: Tamsi, Washim, Tq. And Distt: Washim. 1-b) Smt. Durga W/o Sopan Dhundhule, Aged about 45 years, R/o Samata Nagar, Alala Plot, Washim, Tq. And District: Washim. WITH WRIT PETITION NO.1167 OF 2025 1. Kulasachiv, Dr Punjabrao Deshmukh, Krishi Vidyapeeth, Krushi Nagar, Akoa, Tq. Dist. Akola 2. Vibhag Pramukh, Krishi Sanshodan Kendra, Washim, Dr Panjabrao Deshmukh Krushi Vidyapeeth, Washim … Petitioners -vs- Kalawai Ramchandra Khadse, Age about 70 years, R/o Samta Nagar, Washim, Tq. And Dist. Washim WITH WRIT PETITION NO.1168 OF 2025 1. Kulasachiv, Dr Punjabrao Deshmukh, Krishi Vidyapeeth, Krushi Nagar, Akoa, Tq. Dist. Akola 2. Vibhag Pramukh, Kothari Vibhag, Vani Rambhapur Dr Panjabrao Deshmukh Krushi Vidyapeeth, Akola … Petitioners -vs- Shri Kisan Narayan Wankhade Age about 71 years, R/o At kothari, Post Pailpada, Tq. And Dist. Akola … Respondent Shri Abhay R. Sambre, Advocate for petitioner\s. Shri P. V. Kavishwar, Advocate for respondents. CORAM : NANDESH S. DESHPANDE, J. ARGUMENTS WERE HEARD ON : August 11, 2026 JUDGMENT PRONOUNCED ON : September 10, 2026 Added as per amendment order dt.12/03/2026 J-WP-792-25.... 6/15 Common Judgment : Heard. Rule. Rule made returnable forthwith. Heard finally with the consent of the learned counsel for the parties. 2. Since these petitions arise from substantially similar facts and raise a common question of law, they are being disposed of by this common judgment. With the consent of the parties, Writ Petition No. 792 of 2025 is taken as the lead petition. 3. In this group of petitions, the Petitioners are aggrieved by the judgment dated 31.08.2024 passed by the learned Industrial Court, Akola. By the impugned judgment, the Industrial Court allowed the complaints filed by the employees and directed the Petitioners to make the requisite payments to the respondents on or before 30.11.2024. 4. For convenience, the relevant dates and events in each petition are tabulated below: Sr. No. Writ Petition No. Complainant’s Name Complaint No. Date of Superannua- tion Compensation directed to be paid 1. 792/2025 Panchphula R. Shinde ULP No.10/2017 07/01/2017 Rs.1,47,705/- J-WP-792-25.... 7/15 2. 790/2025 Lila V. Akhatkar ULP No.09/2017 07/01/2017 Rs.1,54,575/- 3. 795/2025 Sindhutai M. Thakare ULP No.07/2017 07/01/2017 Rs.1,54,575/- 4. 793/2025 Shakuntala M. Shinde ULP No.08/2017 07/01/2017 Rs.1,20,225/- 5. 791/2025 Laxmi S. Pradhan ULP No.11/2017 07/01/2017 Rs.1,40,835/- 6. 1162/2025 Shaikh M. Abdul ULP No.67/2016 27/05/2016 Rs.89,100+ Notice Rs.5,400/- 7. 1168/2025 Kisan N. Wankhade ULP No.85/2016 20/01/2015 As Circular dt.23/08/201 0 8. 1166/2025 Natha Y. Sarkate (since dead 03/10/2020) Thr. L.R.s. ULP No.64/2016 27/05/2016 Rs.70,200/-+ 1 month’s notice Rs.5,400/- 9. 1165/2025 Suryabhan R. Kalbande (dead 26/06/2018 Thr. L.R.s ULP No.66/2016 27/05/2016 Rs.81,000/- + Rs.5,400 10. 1163/2025 Shriram N. Chauhan ULPA No.68/2016 27/05/2016 Rs.89,000/- + 5,400/- 11. 1164/2025 Mahadev D. Pilatre ULP No.69/2016 23/04/2016 Rs.72,900/- + Rs.5,400/- 12. 1167/2025 Kalawati R. Khadse ULP No.65/2016 27/05/2016 Rs.89,100/- + Rs.5,400/- 5. The brief facts for disposal of these petitions are that Petitioner No.1 is university running various agricultural colleges, research center for educational and research purposes. The respondent herein i.e. in WP/792/2025 Smt. Panchfula Rambhau Shinde, was engaged as a daily-wage labourer with the Petitioner-University since the year 1976. After rendering continuous service for about 41 years, she attained the J-WP-792-25.... 8/15 age of superannuation and stood superannuated/retired from service on 07.01.2017. Her last drawn daily wage was Rs. 229/- per day. Upon her retirement, the Petitioner-University disbursed an amount of Rs. 89,100/- towards gratuity to her. 6. The respondent approached the learned Industrial Court at Akola by filing Complaint (ULP) No. 10 of 2017. In the said complaint, the respondent claimed that in terms of the University Notification / Circular dated 23.08.2010. she was entitled to retrenchment compensation amounting to Rs. 1,40,835/- (calculated for 41 years of service) along with one month's notice pay of Rs. 6,870/-, aggregating to a total compensation of Rs. 1,47,705/-. The said complaint was allowed vide judgment dated 31.08.2024, which is challenged in the present petitions. 7. I have heard Shri Abhay Sambre, learned counsel for Petitioners and Shri Parimal Kavishwar, learned counsel for Respondent No. 1. Learned counsel for Petitioners submits that respondent was a daily wage labourer and was not appointed against any sanctioned vacant post. Therefore, the respondent cannot claim parity with regular employees or demand terminal compensation contrary to the conditions of daily engagement. Furthermore, It is submitted that the J-WP-792-25.... 9/15 Industrial Court erred in granting relief based on the University Circular/Notification dated 23.08.2010. The said circular applies exclusively to daily-wage labourers who were erroneously continued in service beyond 60 years of age, whose disengagement requires formal termination with one month's notice and retrenchment compensation under Section 25-F of the Industrial Disputes Act, 1947. In the present case, since the respondent's services naturally ceased upon reaching the retirement age of 60 years, the circular dated 23.08.2010 has no application. 8. Lastly, learned counsel contends that an administrative circular cannot supersede/expand the statutory definition of "retrenchment" under the Industrial Disputes Act, 1947. Superannuation at the age of 60 years does not constitute termination, and the Industrial Court committed a jurisdictional error by creating a liability not countenanced by law. Reliance is placed on the judgment in Rakesh Mehta v. Punjab and Sind Bank 2015 (2) SCT 832. 9. Per contra, learned Counsel appearing for the respondent opposed the petitions and supported the impugned order, submitting that the University's own Notification No. LC/S-601/2010 dated 23.08.2010 does not provide for automatic superannuation, but J-WP-792-25.... 10/15 specifically directs that daily wagers completing 60 years of age are to be terminated following due procedure of law, which includes issuance of one month's notice and payment of retrenchment compensation under Section 25-F of the Industrial Disputes Act, 1947. It is urged that under Section 2(oo)(b) of the said Act specifies that retirement on superannuation operates as an exception to retrenchment only where the contract of employment contains an express stipulation to that effect. In the absence of any service contract or binding rule prescribing compulsory retirement at 60 years, the disengagement squarely amounts to retrenchment, making the payment of retrenchment compensation mandatory. 10. Learned Counsel further submitted that the Petitioners cannot defeat the accrued rights of the respondent by relying upon the subsequent Corrigendum dated 28.03.2025, which was issued after an inordinate delay of nearly fifteen years solely to circumvent the adjudication made by the Industrial Court. It is contended that an administrative corrigendum cannot operate retrospectively 11. In backdrop of the facts and arguments canvased, I have considered the rival contentions submitted by the counsel for the respective parties and also gone through the records of the matter J-WP-792-25.... 11/15 which include the complaint before the Industrial Court and the judgment passed therein. 12. As can be seen from the complaint filed by the Respondent- employee herein that it was the consistent say of the said Respondent before the Industrial Court that they stood superannuated since they attained the age of 60 years. It is also a matter of record that amount of gratuity as per their entitlement was paid to them. In this regard letter dated 07/01/2017 with respect to each of the employee has been placed on record by the Petitioner herein where it is specifically stated that since the concerned employee has completed the age of 60 years, the amount of gratuity to which he/she is entitled is deposited in his/her account by way of cheque and they would not be allotted any work after receipt of the said letter. It is thus the case that the workmen stood superannuated on completion of the requisite age. Such admission also finds place in the cross-examination of the concerned employee. He also admits in the cross-examination that he has not challenged the order of termination before any Court of law. 13. As far as applicability of the Circular issued by the University dated 23/08/2010 is concerned, right from initiation of the proceedings before the Industrial Court, it was consistent stand taken J-WP-792-25.... 12/15 by the Petitioner that the employees were not terminated but they stood superannuated. Even though much has been argued regarding the said Circular and the applicability thereof by the learned counsel for the Respondent, a perusal of the said Circular dated 23/08/2010 would show that the said Circular is issued in the context of the fact that in the University, daily wage labours were kept on work even though they have attained or crossed sixty years of age. Said Circular therefore contemplates that those daily wage labours who completed sixty years should be terminated from the service. Therefore the said Circular is applicable with respect to termination of service and not the retirement after attaining the age as contemplated under the Rules. 14. Even though the counsel for the Respondent has contended that the said Circular places reliance upon Clause 27 of Bombay Industrial Labour (Standing Order) Rules, 1959 which provide that age for retirement or superannuation of workmen “may be sixty years” and therefore there is discretion that the use of words “may” would denote that it is directory and not mandatory. However, from the conduct of the parties and more particularly the fact that the letter by which the Petitioners were handed over gratuity specifically provides that the same is paid to the concerned employee on attaining the age of sixty years. It is clear fact that the Respondent herein stood retired and not J-WP-792-25.... 13/15 terminated. Thus, the Circular in my considered opinion would not be applicable. However, assuming that the Circular would apply, the said Circular is directed within the teeth of Section 2(oo) and more particularly Clause (b) of the Industrial Disputes Act, 1947. The said Section provides retrenchment thereby meaning that termination by the employer of the service of a workman for any reason whatsoever, otherwise than as a punishment inflicted by way of disciplinary action but does not include voluntary retirement of the workman on reaching the age of superannuation, as if the contract of employment between the employer and the workman concerned contains stipulation in that behalf. 15. It therefore follows that if a workman retires on reaching the age of superannuation and if the contract of employment between the employer and the workman concerned continued, stipulation in that behalf would not be a retrenchment. In the present case also, the concerned employee having retired after reaching the age of superannuation cannot be said to be retrenched by the employee. Having held so, if the judgment of the Industrial Court is perused, the said judgment is without any reason much less legally justifiable one. It factually records incorrect finding that the petitioner herein has not denied about the office Circular. Further the Industrial Court failed to J-WP-792-25.... 14/15 appreciate that the issuance of Circular was not denied but what was denied was the applicability of the same to the concerned employee i.e. the Respondent herein. 16. The judgment of the Industrial Court curiously enough fails to appreciate various documents submitted by the concerned employee and the evidence of the petitioner which had virtually gone unchallenged. The said judgment even records the finding that only because the institution like the petitioner which has probably dealt with more that 1000 litigations of same nature, the defence that the complaint is filed after termination of employer-employee relationship, the same to say the least is perverse. 17. The judgment of the Industrial Court totally overlooked the provisions of Section 2(oo) of the Industrial Disputes Act, 1947 as referred by me supra. The judgment being perverse is unsustainable in law. 18. The writ petitions therefore are liable to be allowed. The judgments of the Industrial Court, Akola dated 31/08/2024 in Complaint ULP Nos. 64/2016, 65/2016, 66/2016, 67/2016, J-WP-792-25.... 15/15 68/2016, 69/2016, 85/2016, 07/2017, 08/2017, 09/2017, 10/2017, 11/2017 are quashed and set aside. The complaints filed by the complainants i.e. the Respondent-1 respectively herein are rejected. Rule is made absolute in aforesaid terms. Writ Petitions are disposed of. No order as to costs. (NANDESH S. DESHPANDE J.) Asmita Signed by: Smt. Asmita A. Bhandakkar Designation: PS To Honourable Judge Date: 11/09/2026 15:22:01