Full Judgment
B.J. Shethna, J.
1. The petitioner has challenged in this petition the order at Annex. 1, 3, 4 and 5 and prayed that the same may be quashed.
2. Relying upon the two unreported Judgments of two different learned Single Judges of this Court learned Counsel for the petitioner submitted that the impugned order be quashed as the work in a factory of the petitioner was carried out by the casual labourers and it was not a work in connection with establishment. First case was decided by P.P. Naolekar, J. on 8.11.94, Rishabh Textiles (Pvt.) Ltd v. Union of India and Ors. S.B. Civil Writ Petition No. 3235/83. From the photo stat copy of the order it appears that none remained present for the respondents in that case and after hearing the learned Counsel for the petitioner the petition was allowed. That judgment was followed by Shri V.G. Palshikar, J. on 29.8.95 where learned Counsel Shri R.K. Soni appeared for the respondents and orders were set aside relying upon these Judgment. It was submitted by the learned Counsel for the petitioner that the impugned orders be quashed as the point in question is directly covered in favour of the petitioner. However, learned Counsel appearing for the respondents in this case vehemently submitted that the law is well settled long back against the petitioner and there was not one but three reported judgments of this Court relying upon the Supreme Court judgment and none of them were cited before Justice Naolekar as none remained present at the time of hearing of that petition. It was also submitted that the reported judgments were cited before Justice V.G. Palshikar by learned Counsel Shri Soni appearing for the respondents in that petition, but the same were not referred to in the judgment by the learned Judge and straight away relying upon Justice Naolekar's judgment that petition was allowed by the learned Judge. It is not open for this Court to express any opinion about it. However, I find lot of substance in the submission of learned Counsel for the respondents that three different Judges of this Court have held that casual labours are employees and Act is applicable. It was urged that there is conflicting view expressed by different Judges of this Court and, therefore, this Court should refer the matter to the larger Bench for resolving the question involved in this matter. In ordinary circumstances that would have been the only course available to me. In my opinion it was the duty of the learned Counsel who appeared before Justice Naolekar to point out the reported decisions of this Court particularly when no one was appearing for the respondents.
3. These are the difficulties of the transfer policy where a Judge coming on transfer (P.P. Naolekar, J.) from other State may not be aware of the reported or unreported decisions of this Court. Simply appreciating the averments made before him. Naolekar' J, may have taken a totally different view. I am sure that, if the above reported decisions of this Court were brought to the notice of P.P. Naolekar, J. then he would have never taken such view. Justice Palshikar has simply relied upon the unreported judgment of Justice Naolekar. When the law is very well settled by this Court in not one but number of decisions relying upon the Supreme Court and other High Courts decisions then it will be futile for this Court to refer the matter to the larger Bench merely because later on two Judges of this Court have taken a different view, inadvertently.
4. Therefore, I am not inclined to refer the matter to the larger Bench as the law laid down earlier, based on the decision of Supreme Court and other High Courts, required to be followed and referring the matter to the Larger Bench would be nothing but waste of money and valuable time of two Judges of this Court.
5. In this case the petitioner has obtained interim relief against recovery of amount and they would be interested in prolonging the hearing of the matter.
6. In view of the above three reported decisions of this Court the writ petition is required to be dismissed without referring the matter to the larger Bench, as the point in question is directly covered against the petitioner by the three reported decisions of this Court based on Supreme Court decision as well as decision of other High Courts.
7. Accordingly, this petition is dismissed with costs.
8. The stay order granted earlier by this Court stands vacated forthwith.