The Bombay High Court (HC) recently directed Hingoli Zilla Parishad (ZP) to grant all pensionary benefits to the legal heirs of a deceased clerk even though the case challenging his dismissal was pending in the Labour Court considering the “the peculiar facts and circumstances of the case”.
Justice Sandeep Marne of the Aurangabad Bench of HC also directed the ZP to treat him in service during the period between his dismissal and reinstatement to service.
Anil Patil, who was appointed as a Junior Assistant (accounts) with the ZP, was dismissed from service in 2012. Pending hearing in his petition before the HC, he died.
“In the peculiar facts and circumstances of the case, ends of justice would meet if a quietus is given to the entire case by directing the respondent – Zilla Parishad to treat the deceased employee as in service till the date of his retirement / death and to grant all admissible pensionary benefits to his legal heirs,” observed justice Marne.
In 2004, Patil was charged with misconduct for disobedience, arrogant behaviour and absenteeism. He was penalized and a warning was imposed on him. In 2007, another charge sheet was issued against him and he was dismissed from service on May 19, 2012.
He challenged this dismissal order before the Labour Court, which stayed the dismissal. He was then reinstated from January 15, 2016. In its final order, while setting aside the dismissal order, the Labour court granted continuity of service and back wages to the petitioner.
This was challenged by the ZP before the Industrial Court, Jalna, which set aside the Labour Court's judgement and sent the case back to Labour court for fresh hearing.
Patil approached the HC against the Industrial Court’s order. During the pendency of the petition, the petitioner passed away and his legal heirs were brought on record.
His advocate argued that the case could not be heard afresh by the Labour Court as per the Industrial Court’s order as Patil, due to his demise, will not be able to lead additional evidence or cross examine the ZP’s witnesses.
ZP contended that Patil’s death cannot be a reason to saddle it with liability to pay back wages. Also, the evidence was already submitted before the Labour Court in the first round of litigation and it can decide the matter on its basis.
The court noted that the Industrial Court granted liberties to the parties to submit additional evidence before the Labour Court. However, it would not be possible now due to the death of the petitioner.
The high court directed the ZP to treat the petitioner as in service till the date of his death and pay all retirement benefits to legal heirs of the petitioner within four months.
However, the HC said that “it would not be appropriate to saddle the respondents - Zilla Parishad with the burden of backwages for the period from 19.05.2012 to 15.01.2016”.
