2024:BHC-NAG:12232
1 / 3
950-wp-814-24
IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY
NAGPUR BENCH : NAGPUR
WRIT PETITION NO. 814 OF 2024
The Chief Officer, Municipal Council, Mul, Tal. Mul, District – Chandrapur
Vs.
Prabhakar S/o Narayan Yednuttulwar and Ors.
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Office notes, Office Memoranda of
Coram, appearances, Court's orders Court's or Judge's Orders.
or directions and Registrar's orders.
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Mr. A.D.Kale, Advocate h/f Mr. D.M. Kale, Advocate for
petitioner.
Mr. R.R. Dawda, Advocate for respondent No.1.
Ms. Deepali Sapkal, AGP for respondent Nos.2 & 3/State.
CORAM : N.R. BORKAR, J.
th
DATE : 25 OCTOBER, 2024.
This petition takes exception to the
judgment and order dated 21.10.2023 passed by the
learned Industrial Court, Chandrapur, in Complaint
(ULP) No.18/2022.
2. The respondent No.1 herein had filed the
complaint under Section 28 read with Item 9 of
Schedule IV of the Maharashtra Recognition of Trade
Unions and Prevention of Unfair Labour Practices Act,
1971. The challenge in the said complaint was to the
order passed by the petitioner, by which recovery of
excess amount paid to the respondent was ordered.
Prity
2 / 3
950-wp-814-24
3. By the order impugned, the learned
Industrial Court has allowed the said complaint. The
learned Industrial Court has recorded the following
findings :
“15. It is not a disputed fact in present case that, the
complainant is class C employee and has retired
from service on 31.03.2021. This falls under
situations (1) and (2) as laid down by Hon’ble
Supreme Court in case of Rafiq Masih referred
above, wherein recoveries by the employers, would
be impermissible in law, in the circumstances, where
payments have mistakenly been made by the
employer, in excess of their entitlement. In these
circumstances, respondent No.3 is not entitled for
recovery of alleged amount which is paid in excess
to the entitlement of the complainant, as directed by
Hon’ble Supreme Court in case of Rafiq Masih
referred above. Natural consequences of these
circumstances is that, impugned order dated
23.02.2022 has to be termed as illegal, being in
violations of mandate of Hon’ble Supreme Court in
case of Rafiq Masih referred above. Resultantly, by
issuing impugned order dated 23.02.2022, which is
illegal, is an act of the respondents, whereby they
have engaged in unfair labour practice. In these
circumstances, I am of the opinion that, the
complainant has proved that, impugned order dated
Prity
3 / 3
950-wp-814-24
23.02.2022 is illegal and by issuing impugned order
dated 23.02.2022, the respondents are engaged in
unfair labour practice. With these reasoning, I
answer issue No.01 and 02 in the affirmative.”
4. It is not shown that the learned Industrial
Court has wrongly relied upon the judgment of the
Hon’ble Supreme Court in the case of State of Punjab
and Ors. Vs. Rafiq Masih, reported in AIR 2015 SCC
696, to quash the order of recovery, or that the said
judgment is not applicable to the facts and
circumstances of the present case. In that view of the
matter, no interference is called for in the impugned
judgment and order. Hence, the petition is dismissed.
(N.R. BORKAR, J.)
SKNair
Prity