Research › Search › Judgment

Bombay High Court · body

2016 DIGILAW 1574 (BOM)

P. Shankaranarayan v. State of Maharashtra

2016-08-30

ANOOP V.MOHTA, G.S.KULKARNI

body2016
JUDGMENT : G.S. Kulkarni J. Heard the learned counsel appearing for the parties. 2. The grievance of the Petitioners is as regards additional compensation of Rs. 3.5 lacs which came to be distributed at the hands of the then Hon'ble Guardian Minister to the employees of Respondent No.5 - Standard Alkali Limited. The principal grievance of the Petitioners in the writ petition is that as the Petitioners are denied such additional compensation, there is a representation dated 23.12.2008 made by the Petitioners to the then Hon'ble Minister and other concerned Authorities and that this Court should issue directions that the representation be decided. 3. It is not in dispute that there is a closure of Respondent No.5 in the year 2005. The basis of the writ petition is an article in the news paper which is annexed at page 46 of the Petition (Exhibit “E” ) which records that the then Hon'ble Guardian Minister had distributed additional compensation to the 57 workers of Respondent No.5 on 22 June 2008. The Petitioners claim that they are similarly situated and accordingly they approached the then Hon'ble Guardian Minister that the Petitioners also be granted additional compensation. It is stated that accordingly a meeting was held on 11.02.2009 on the representation of the Petitioners. However, no action was taken. 4. We have perused the averments made in the Petition. We have also gone through the various annexures to the writ petition. What is pertinent is that the Joint Secretary of the Industries, Labour and Power Department, by letter dated 30 June 2009 has informed, under the Right to Information Act, that the amounts which came to be paid to 57 workers have not been distributed on behalf of the concerned Department and that there was no information available with the said Department in that regard. What is further important to be noted is that the Petitioners in paragraph 21 of the writ petition have made a categorical averment that it has come to the knowledge of the Petitioners that the amounts which were distributed by the then Hon'ble Guardian Minister were being supplied by Respondent No.5 company. 5. Considering the facts of the case and the claim as made by the Petitioners, we are certain that we cannot grant any indulgence in such a writ petition even to issue a direction to the Government to consider the representation. 5. Considering the facts of the case and the claim as made by the Petitioners, we are certain that we cannot grant any indulgence in such a writ petition even to issue a direction to the Government to consider the representation. The rights of the workers, if any, to seek retrenchment compensation or any such compensation are required to be espoused before the appropriate forum under he relevant Labour/Industrial law. It is not the case that the Petitioners would not be entitled to the lawful remedy in that regard. As regards the claim for this additional compensation, on the Petitioners' own showing if the same was paid from the funds of Respondent No.5, then surely it is not a case for us to inquire into this factual controversy in exercise of our jurisdiction under Article 226 of the Constitution of India. These are issues of facts which are required to be gone into under the appropriate laws before the appropriate judicial forum. We also cannot pass any orders on the disputed issues on the basis of news paper cuttings. If the Petitioners have any legal rights, under any law, the Petitioners ought to have espoused them as permissible in law. We also cannot issue directions to the State Government to consider the representation of the Petitioner which is dated 23.12.2008 in view of the position in law as laid down by the Supreme Court in the case of C. Jacob v. Directorate of Geology and Mining and anr AIR 209 SC 264 wherein detailed guidelines are laid down to be considered by the Courts in matter of directions to be issued to the authorities to consider a representation. Their Lordships in para 10 of the decision have held as follows :- “10 We are constrained to refer to the several facets of the issue only to emphasise the need for circumspection and care in issuing directions for consideration. If the representation on the face of it is stale or does not contain particulars to show that it is regarding a live claim, courts should desist from directing consideration of such claims.” 6. In view of above deliberation, we find no merit in the present writ petition. The same is accordingly rejected. No costs. 7. In view of rejection of writ petition, Civil Application (ST) No.35018/2013 would not survive and is accordingly rejected.