MARATHWADA SARV SHRAMIK SANGHATANA THROUGH ITS JOINT SECRETARY AND OTHERSversusSTATE OF MAHARASHTRA THROUGH COMMISSIONER OF AGRICULTURE AND OTHERS

2026:BHC-AUG:42805



                                                                    6-sr.18.WP.8953.2023


                     IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY
                                BENCH AT AURANGABAD

                             WRIT PETITION NO. 8953 OF 2023

            Marathwada Sarv Shramik Sanghatana
            Through Its Joint Secretary And Others                ..Petitioners
                  VERSUS
            State Of Maharashtra
            Through Commissioner Of Agriculture
            And Others                                            ..Respondents

                                              ----
            Mr.Parag Barde, Advocate for petitioners
            Mr.B.V.Virdhe, AGP for respondent nos.1 to 5
                                              ----

                                      CORAM :      AJIT B. KADETHANKAR, J.
                                      DATE  :      SEPTEMBER 15, 2026

            ORDER :-

                        Heard learned advocates for the parties. Considering the

            short issue involved, the petition is heard for final disposal with the

            consent of learned advocates for the parties.


            2.          Feeling aggrieved by the judgment and order dated

            24.08.2022 passed by learned Labour Court, Jalna in Application (IDA)

            No.3 of 2021 the petitioners are before this court.


            3.          Mr.Barde, learned advocate for the petitioners would

            submit that the petitioners are daily wagers and have sought benefit

            under Section 33C(2) of the Industrial Disputes Act, 1947 (“the Act”, for

            short) vide the proceeding before the Labour Court.    He would submit
                                    2                        6-sr.18.WP.8953



that the   basis for the benefit sought in the application is the

judgment and order dated 19.01.1988 passed by learned Industrial

Court, Ahmednagar in Complaint (ULP) No.274 of 1986. He would

submit that in the said complaint, the daily wagers were granted

benefit at the rate of 1/26th portion of the monthly wages of unskilled

workers with effect from 20.11.1986. He would submit that the said

order was taken up in challenge by the respondents – Government

the High Court vide Writ Petition No.4246 of 1988. After hearing the

parties, this court was pleased to dismiss the Writ Petition and as

such the findings recorded by the learned Member of Industrial

Court, Ahmednagar came to be confirmed.



4.          Mr.Barde, learned cousnel for the petitioners further

submits that based on said order a number of Writ Petitions were

filed by other daily wagers seeking the same relief under Section

33C(2) of the Act. He would cite an order dated 08.11.2001 passed

in a bunch of Writ Petitions led by Writ Petition No.2416 of 2021

(The State of Maharashtra and anr. Vs. Smt. Sumanbai

Baburao Mogal) decided on 08.11.2001.           He would submit that

in the cited case also, the objection was that there was no pre-

existing right in favour of the petitioners for which there could be

benefit of Section 33C(2) of the Act. It is poined out that the court
                                       3                            6-sr.18.WP.8953



held that from the date on which the Complaint (ULP) No.274 of 2026

was decided, the similarly situated employees like the petitioners

earned pre-existing right. The sum and substance of the arguments

of Mr.Barde is that the right to be conferred on an employee under

Section 33C(2)     of the Act, in the peculiar facts, was not an

individualisitc right but by recognistion to such right by the Industrial

Court as well as this Court to the category of the employees. He

would cite another judgment and order passed by this court                  in a

bunch of Writ Petitions led by Writ Petition No.5263 of 2005 (The

State   of   Maharashtra       and    anr.    Vs.   Sumanbai        Jijabapu

Dongare) decided on 14.02.2014.              He would submit that while

disposing of that group of Writ Petitions, this court in paragraphs 8

and 9 observed thus:-



                  8.     The learned Single Judge of this Court vide
                  judgment dated 8.11.2001 in Writ Petition
                  No.2416/2001 with other connected writ
                  petitions has also considered the said in respect of
                  similarly situated workers and has affirmed the
                  right of the said workers to claim the amount u/s
                  33C(2) of the Industrial Disputes Act, 1947.
                  Subsequently, the same has been followed by this
                  Court in a catena of judgments referred supra.

                  9] It would be seen that even for the delayed
                  period, the Labour Court has not awarded any
                  interest. only in the default of payment, the
                  interest is awarded.
                                        4                             6-sr.18.WP.8953



5.           Then, citing another order dated 04.09.2018 passed

by this court in a group of Writ Petitions led by Writ Petition

No.8315 of 2018 (The Commissioner of Agriculture and

others Vs. Marathwada Sarva Shramik Sanghatana and

others), Mr. Barde, learned counsel for the petitioners submits that

consistently this court has taken a view that the daily wagers would

be entitled for daily wage at the rate of 1/26 th of the salary paid to

the regular permanent unskilled workers.             Paragraphs 11 of the

judgment dated 04.09.2018 reads thus:-


                  11. Considering the above and in view of the
                  settled position of law that if regularization is not
                  possible, daily wagers would be entitled to a
                  daily wage at the rate of 1/26th of the salary
                  paid to regular permanent employees who
                  performed the same nature of work.

                  12. In view of the above and considering the
                  crystallized position of law and at the same time,
                  relying upon the judgent of this Court in
                  Sumanbai (supra) and a similar judgment dated
                  08th November, 2001, delivered by this Court in
                  Writ Petition No. 2416/2001 and group of
                  petitions, I do not find that the Labour Court has
                  committed any error in partly allowing the
                  applications filed by these workers.


            Citing these judgments and orders Mr.Barde submits that

both counts on which the trial court has rejected petitioner’s

application, cannot be sustained.           He would submit that the
                                      5                           6-sr.18.WP.8953



application of the petitioners came to be rejected on two counts: (i)

lack of pre-existance of rights and (ii) delay. He submits that the pre-

existing right is well defined in the catena of judmengs as cited

(supra). So far as delay is concerned, he would rely on paragraph 9

of the judgment and order dated 14.02.2014 in the case of

Sumanbai Jijabapu Dongare (supra). So far as delay is concerned,

the court observed that there is no question of grant of any interest

for the delayed period.


6.             Mr.Virdhe, learned AGP supports the findings rendered

by the trial court and would submit that there is no pre-existing right

in favour of the petitioners.   He would support the findings of the

Labour Court on the point of delay. So far as another objection as

regards delay caused in filing the application is concerned, the issue

is no more res integra in the light of the judgment and ordre passed

by Full Bench of this Court in the case of Maharashtra State Road

Transport Corporation and others Vs. Premlal Khatri Gajbhiye

andothers, 2004(2) Bom. C.R. 338.             Paragraph 18 of the said

judgment reads thus:-


                  18.    The next ground of challenge in the
                  matter pertains to bar of limitation for
                  entertaining the complaint at the instance of the
                  respondents. There is no doubt that the
                  complaints were filed almost beyond the period
                                       6                           6-sr.18.WP.8953



                  of three years from the date of commencement of
                  grant of ephemeral time scale to the respondents
                  and from the commencement of denial of
                  benefits to them under Clause 49 of 1956
                  settlement. The contention of the respondent,
                  however, is that it is a recurring cause of action
                  which entitled them to approach the Industrial
                  Court even beyond the period of three years from
                  the date the petitioners started refusing the
                  benefits under Clause 49 of 1956 settlement and,
                  that the injury continued to be inflicted upon the
                  respondents every month.


7.          Mr. Virdhe, learned AGP also cites judgment and order

passed by Hon’ble Supreme Court in the case of Bombay Chemical

Industries Vs. Deputy Labour Commissioner and anr., (2022)5

SCC 629. He submits that the Hon’ble Supreme Court confirmed the

law that for the purpose of benefit under Section 33C(2) there must

be pre-existing right in favour of the employee. With utmost respect,

this court is in full agreement with legal proposition led down by the

Hon’ble Supreme Court. There is no reason to disagree with it.


8.          As I have already observed, the pre-existing right of the

petitioners and similarly employees is defined by this court under a

catena of judgments of which litigation i.e. Complaint (ULP) No.274

of 1986 is the basis. Thus, I have held that the petitioners have pre-

existing right toclaim benefit of Section 33C(2) of the Act.
                                     7                           6-sr.18.WP.8953



9.          In view of the above, I pass the following order:-

(A)         The Writ Petition stands allowed.


(B)         The judgment and order dated        24.08.2022 passed by

learned Labour Court, Jalna in Application (IDA) No.3 of 2021 is

quashed and set aside.     The applicaiton Application (IDA) No.3 of

2021 stands allowed. To clarify, the petitioners shall be entitled for

the interest from the date of application.




                                 [AJIT B. KADETHANKAR, J.]
                               ………..


KBP