BEFORE THE HON’BLE LABOUR COURT PUNE

AT PUNE

Application (IDA) No. 14/2005

Shri. Laxmikant V. Gorse -- Applicant

Vs

M/s. Rathi Transpower Pvt. Ltd. -- Opponent.

ADDITIONAL AFFIDAVIT OF EXAMINATION IN CHIEF

I, Shri. Laxmikant Vithalrao Gorase, Age about 52

yrs, Occupation : Service, R/at Present address : C/o.

Deepak R. Kirat Kudave, S.No.10, Near Rajendra General

Stores, Kamraj Nagar, Yerwada, Pune 411 006, the

Applicant/ Petitioner do hereby state on solemn affirmation

as under :

1) I Say that being the workman of M/s. Rathi

Transpower Pvt. Ltd. of Gat No. 144, 145, Markal

Road, Alandi, Tal-Khed, Dist-Pune I am entitled to

receive from the opponent Company M/s. Rathi

Transpower Pvt. Ltd. the money, benefit mentioned

in the statement annex with the main application

and in addition to that, I am also entitled to get the

order of permanency from May 1999 i.e. from the

date on which my junior has been granted

permanency, as per the judgment/order passed by

1
 the Hon’ble High Court at Bombay, in Writ Petition

No. 2578/2003.

2) I say that, the earlier Evidence Affidavit submitted

by me at Exh.28 on 07.07.2007 before this Hon’ble

Court which is a part and parcel of my claim in

continuation of this Evidence Affidavit and the

amendment of this application (IDA) No.14/2005,

as well as amendment carried out by me in

pursuance of the order of this Hon’ble Court dtd.

16.01.2017 below Exh.63.

3) I Say that the I was member of the recognize union

viz. Sarvashramik Sanghatana applicable for the

Opponent Company, during the course of 1998

upto 2006 thereafter I became the member of the

next recognize union viz. Rashtrvadi Maharashtra

General Kamgar Union, prevailing with the

Opponent Company. The present claim u/s 33-

C(2) of the I.D. Act, is my personal right thereby it

is filed in my individual capacity.

4) I Say that, being the permanent in the service of

the Opponent Company, I am entitled for the

monitory benefits and the difference of wages in

2
 the light of the various Memorandum of settlement,

executed between opponent company and the

above referred recognize union, in the months of

July 1998, March 2002, January 2006 &

Memorandum of Understanding dated 21.09.2009

and 08.05.2012 time to time. The true copies of

these agreements/ settlements bears the signature

of the office bearers of our Union and on behalf of

the management the senior manager and high

officials of the Opponent Company. Its contents

are true and correct. Therefore these documents

submitted at list dated 03.02.2018 may be marked

at exhibit, as proved documents thereby it may be

read in evidence.

5) I say that, in response to the entitlement of

monitory benefits, I applied for recovery of due

from Opponent/Company to the office of Deputy

Commissioner of Labour District Pune, u/s 33-C (I)

I.D. Act. but it does not mean that the said

Application was filed for settlement before the

Hon’ble Deputy Commissioner of the Labour as the

said application are filed against the opponent

3
 company with admitted terms of various

agreements and against the breach of the terms

and conditions laid down in the agreement.

Thereafter the said complaint was filed by me

against the opponent is in violation of the terms

and conditions of the various agreements and it is

penalize in the eye of law. Which need not be

referred by the Commissioner of labour as a

Industrial Dispute for adjudication before the

Labour or Industrial Court.

6) I say that, In the said proceeding pending before

the Deputy Commissioner of Labour, the authority

has send letter dated 05.07.2011 to me along with

copies of the letter correspondence dated

05.03.2010, 02.05.2011, 27.05.2011 received from

the opponent company on its letterhead, address

to the upper labour commissioner Pune, in which

the opponent first of all, admits the arrears of

difference amounting to Rs.3,60,000/- due and

payable to me. Secondly, the opponent admits and

amount of Rs. 4,42,000/- as per the letter dated

02.05.2011, due payable to me, and thirdly as per

4
the letter dated 27.05.2011 admitted the due

amount payable as a difference in pay, as per the

above referred agreements, by enclosing the

cheque of Rs. 4,50,000/- dated 10.05.2011

payable to me, but the said payable amount is

subject to condition mentioned in these letter

correspondence that the applicant has to withdraw

the different complaints lodged against the

opponent Company in the Court of session at Khed

(Rajgurunagar) on the subject of Atrocity Act, the

complaint to the Factory Inspector and complaints

lodged in the office of Labour Commissioner, Pune.

The copies of the above referred letter

correspondence made by the Opponent Company

dated 05.03.2010, 05.07.2011, 02.05.2011,

27.05.2011, 28,07.2011, 12.08.2011,

03.10.2011, 15.05.2010, 10.06.2010, are already

submitted at list Exh. 47/6 to 47/16 its contest

are true and correct. These documents are coming

from my custody. Therefore, these documents may

be exhibited as proved and which may be read in

evidence in my favour.

5
7) I say that, the various complaints filed by me

before the different Court and Authorities are

genuine as I myself belongs to the scheduled caste

community and protected by the law. These

complaints has no any concern, whatsoever with

the pre-existing and pre recognize or pre-determine

right to claim the monitory benefits in execution of

the above referred agreements/ settlements time to

time took place between our recognize union and

the opponent company. These complaints are

against the economical exploitation on the basis of

castiesm, carried out by the opponent company.

8) I say that, the agreement / settlement executed

between the recognised union and the opponent/

company is not included in this execution

proceeding. Hence, the notice dtd. 15.05.2010

issued by labour commissioners office, to the

opp/company, in breach of the settlement /

agreement dtd. 28.07.2009 for the period of 2009

to 2012 is to be considered, which was

subsequently admits by the Opp/company during

the hearing of proceeding on 22.03.2010, before

6
 the Deputy Commissioner of labour but still it is to

be executed against the opponent/company as

ignored to implement the same.

9) I say that the amount of due to me from the

opponent/Company may please be determined by

this Hon’ble Court and the amount of difference to

pay as mentioned in the annexure of main

application as well as in the auditors report dtd.

01.08.2012, enclosed with the list of documents at

Exh. 47/15, disclosing outstanding amount of

Rs.5,85,617/- for a period of 01.07.1998 to

31.05.2012 including Ex-gratia payment of 6

months (Rs.45,091/-) as per the agreement of

2008, may be directed to be paid to me by the

Opponent/Company.

10) I say that the Opponent/Company may be

directed to pay the due amount with interest at the

rate of 12% per annum from the date of due till its

realization to the applicant, with cost. I further say

and submits that the entitlement of due amount to

receive from the Opponent/Company is capable of

being computed in terms of money.

7
11) I say that the contents of the Written statement

and Additional Written Statement at Exh. C-17,

and the C-70, filed on behalf of the Opponent are

not true and correct and legal one. Therefore, I

deny the contents of Written statement and

Additional Written Statement. The opponent/

company is properly aware that, there is my

existing right to claim the difference of monetary

benefits since 1st July 1999, but Opponent

Company avoided to pay the same on one or the

other pretext. Therefore I am causing great

hardships and loss, which should be compensated

by awarding interest on such arrears of pay/

allowances.

12) I say that the opponent/ company falsely raised a

question of substantiate and major industrial

dispute and various issues of law and facts, about

jurisdiction of this Hon’ble Court u/s 33-C(2) of the

I.D. Act, to entertain and decide the application

being the executing court and tried to avoid the

payment of my legitimate rights.

8
13) I say that, the judgment/order passed by the

Hon’ble Bombay High Court in W. P. No.

2578/2003, as regards the permanency has not

been fully complied and followed by the Opponent/

Company from the date of the permancy of Jr.

workers to me and suppress the material fact of

the case

14) I say that, the opponent/ company falsely alleged

to me, that I have to greed to blackmailing to the

company and continued the litigation, after

availing the benefits of the settlement of 1998

agreement. In fact there is parity with the other

workman in respect of wages and benefits granted

in their favour by mathematical calculations as the

opponent company has not maintain the seniority

list of the workers, as per law.

15) I say that the opponent/ company falsely stated in

its evidence affidavit of the witness, about the
allowance and pay has been paid as per settlement
dtd 03.05.2005. Hence the contention of the
opponent/company are not acceptable, and

deserves to be rejected.

9
 Whatever stated above in para no. 1 to 15 are true

and correct to the best of my knowledge, belief and

information and the same are read over and explain to

me in my mother tongue i.e. Marathi, hence I have

singed on 03rd day of February, 2018 at Pune.

AFFIANT
I know the Affiant

Advocate.

10