Bombay High Court
SHRIKRUSHNA KUNDALIK SONWANEversusCHIEF EXECUTIVE OFFICER NIKASH C. N. C. ENGINEERS PVT. LIMITED
- Disposal
- DISPOSED OFF
Holding
The High Court quashed the Labour Court’s order and remitted the matter for a fresh determination after the employer produces the required documents.
Summary
The petitioner, Shrikrushna Kundalik Sonwane, filed a writ petition challenging the order of the 2nd Labour Court, Ahmednagar, which had determined his leave encashment entitlement based on a calculation of 42 paid leaves. He alleged that the Labour Court had failed to consider certain documents that the employer was directed to produce on 03.05.2019, and that the omission affected the correctness of the leave encashment calculation. The respondent argued that the Labour Court correctly applied the Factories Act, 1948, which permits a maximum of 30 days leave encashment and that the record of 2018 had been duly considered. The High Court, after reviewing the procedural lapse, quashed the Labour Court’s order and remitted the matter back to it, directing the employer to produce the pending documents before a fresh order is passed. No merits of the leave encashment claim were decided, and the writ petition was disposed of.
Issues considered
- Whether the order of the 2nd Labour Court should be set aside for failure to consider documents ordered to be produced by the employer.
- Whether the calculation of leave encashment complies with the provisions of the Factories Act, 1948.
- Whether the employer is required to produce the documents listed in Exhibit-U-5 before the Labour Court can pass a fresh order.
Legislation cited
Subjects
- leave encashment
- labour law
- Factories Act
- document production
- writ petition
- remand
Judgment
2026:BHC-AUG:38205
1
937-wp-2992-2023
IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY
BENCH AT AURANGABAD
WRIT PETITION NO. 2992 OF 2023
Shrikrushna Kundalik Sonwane
VERSUS
Chief Executive Officer Nikash C. N. C. Engineers Pvt. Limited
...
Mr. H. U. Dhage, Advocate for the Petitioner
Mr. B. R. Kawre, Advocate for Respondent
…..
CORAM : AJIT B. KADETHANKAR, J.
DATED : 21ST AUGUST, 2026
P.C. :-
. Feeling aggrieved by the judgment and order dated
27.12.2022 passed by learned Presiding Officer @ Judge of 2 nd
Labour Court, Ahmednagar on an application (I.D.A. No.114
of 2018), the petitioner/employee is before this Court.
2. The petitioner is concerned about the payment of his
leave encashment. After hearing the parties, the Trial Court
observed that 30 days paid leave of the applicant were carried
forward to the succeding year i.e. last year of his service and
the paid leaves available to him in the last year of his service
would be 12. That, in view of that calculation at the time of
petitioner’s resignation, he should have 42 paid leaves
available. The muster roll of the applicant at Exhibit-C-14 was
taken into consideration by the Labour Court.
3. Mr. H. U. Dhage, learned Advocate for the petitioner
would submit that the petitioner subsequently came to know
that the Labour Court has passed an order on 03.05.2019
2
937-wp-2992-2023
thereby directing the respondent to produce the documents as
were prayed by the petitioner/applicant in his application at
Exhibit-U-5. Mr. Dhage, learned Advocate would submit that
the respondent/employer did not produce these documents on
record before the Labour Court.
4. It is the contention of Mr. Dhage that if these
documents came before the Labour Court, the things would be
clear and the entitlement of the petitioner to the desired leave
encashment would be clear. In view of this, he submits that
the impugned order be set aside and the matter be relegated
back to Labour Court for passing fresh order and for directing
the employer to produce on record the documents as were
prayed in application below Exhibit-U5. He further submits
that the Labour Court has considered the record of 2018 only.
5. Mr. B. R. Kawre, learned Advocate for the
respondent/employer strongly objects to such prayer. He
submits that as per the provisions of the Factories Act, 1948,
the leave encashment as is permissible was rightly granted by
the Labour Court. He would submit that at the most, leave
encashment for 30 days is permissible and accumulation of
leave up to 30 days is allowed. As regards to the consideration
of 2018 record, he submits that the Labour Court has duly
considered the said record in the light of provisions of the
Factories Act, 1948.
6. May it be, since the order dated 03.05.2019 passed by
learned Judge of 2nd Labour Court is before me, I deem it
appropriate to quash and set aside the impugned order and to
3
937-wp-2992-2023
relegate the matter back to the Labour Court for passing the
order afresh.
7. Respondent/employer shall produce on record all those
documents which are mentioned in the Ehxibit-U-5, if not
already produced.
8. Learned Judge of the Labour Court is requested to pass
a fresh order considering the documents which the employer
shall produce as per the order dated 03.05.2019.
9. It is made clear that this Court has not commented
anything on merits of the case of either party. With these, Writ
Petition stands disposed of.
10. Parties accept to appear before the Labour Court on
01.09.2026.
11. Writ Petition stands disposed of.
( AJIT B. KADETHANKAR, J. )
Rushikesh/2026
Checking your session…