Bombay High Court
Ku. Latika Shamraoji Kakad vs Amravati Univetsity Amravati on 19 December, 2009
Bench: V. A. Naik
1
IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY:
NAGPUR BENCH: NAGPUR
WRIT PETITON NO.3653 OF 2002
PETITIONERS:
1] Ku. Latika Shamraoji Kakad, aged about 44 years, occupation : nil, resident of
c/o D.N.Tople, Ganesh Nagar, Near Goshavi colony Amravati Tq & District :
Amravati
2] Ku. Mangala d/o Yeshwantrao Deshmukh, aged about 33 years, occupation :
Nil, r/o Kaloti Nagar, No. 4, Amravati, Tq. &Distt. Amravati.
3] Ku. Prabha d/o Prabhakarrao Deshmukh aged about 32 years, occupation :
service, r/o Patwipura Inside Ambagate, Amravati Tq & Distt. Amravati.
4] Rekha Vinayakrao Deshmukh, aged about 31 years, occupation Nil, r/o Ist
Lane Jalaram Nagar, Amravati Tq & Distt. Amravati.
VERSUS
RESPONDENT:
Amravati Univetsity Amravati, through its Registrar, Amravati University,
Amravati Tahsil & District : Amravati.
============================================================
Shri N.R. Saboo, advocate for the petitioners
============================================================
CORAM: SMT. VASANTI A. NAIK, J.
DATE: DECEMBER 19, 2009
ORAL JUDGMENT.
By this petition, the petitioners impugn the order passed by the
Industrial Court, Amravati on 17.1.2002.
2] The petitioners are the original complainants. They had filed a
complaint before the Industrial Court under section 28 of the Maharashtra
Recognition of Trade Unions & Prevention of Unfair Labour Practices Act
1971. It was their case that they were working as daily rated workers with the
respondent University and their services were terminated in March 1992. The
complainants were graduates and had passed Marathi and English Typing
Examination. Though sufficient work was available with the University, it
was the case of the complainants that they were given technical break and the
seniority list was prepared in the year 1993, but the names of the
complainants were not included in the list. The complainants made a
representation for inclusion of their names in the seniority list. However, the
same was not done. Since the names did not figure in the list and since they
were not provided work, the petitioners/ complainants alleged that there was
unfair labour practice by the respondent University.
3] The University filed a written statement and denied the claim of the
petitioners. It was pleaded that an advertisement was given in the news paper
before preparing the seniority list and the seniority list was prepared on the
basis of the applications received by the University. The University denied
that there was sufficient work available with the University. It was pleaded
that the University was providing the work to the daily wagers whose names
were found in the seniority list. The University sought of the dismissal of the
complaint. On an appreciation of the evidence on record, the Industrial Court
partly allowed the complaint and directed the University to include the names
of the petitioners in the seniority list of Class III daily wage workers. Since
no direction was issued by the Industrial Court to provide them work in
accordance with their placement in the seniority list, the petitioners have
impugned the order passed by the Industrial Court on 17.1.2002 by this writ
petition.
4] Shri N.R. Saboo, the learned counsel for the petitioner submitted that
the Industrial Court inadvertently failed to issue a direction to the University
to provide work to the petitioners in accordance with their placement in the
seniority list. The learned counsel for the petitioners submitted that though it
was observed by the Industrial Court, in paragraph 11 of the judgment, that
on the basis of the placement, they can get the employment, the said
observation does not find place in the operative part of the order. The learned
counsel for the petitioner submitted that by an interim order dated 28.9.2004,
this court had observed that the names of the petitioners figure in the
seniority list and they have a right to be considered for providing the work
before the work is provided to the other juniors. The learned counsel for the
petitioner submitted that this court had directed the University to provide the
work to the petitioners as per their standing in the seniority list and this court
may dispose of the petition with a direction to the University to provide work
to the petitioners according to their standing in the seniority list.
5] None appears on behalf of the respondents, though served.
6] I have considered the submissions made on behalf of the petitioners and
have also perused the order dated 17.1.2002. Though it is observed in
paragraph 11 of the impugned order that the petitioners can get the
employment, according to their placement in the seniority list, inadvertently,
this observation does not find place in the operative part of the order. This
court, had however, by an interim order directed the University to provide the
work to the petitioners as per their standing in the seniority list. It is not in
dispute that the seniority list of daily wage workers was maintained by the
University so as to provide work to the daily wagers according to their
placement in the seniority list and since the names of the petitioners are
placed in the seniority list, in terms of the order passed by the Industrial
Court on 17.1.2002, it is necessary for the University to provide the work to
the petitioners according to their standing in the seniority list.
7] Hence, the writ petition is allowed. The impugned order passed by the
Industrial Court on 17.1.2002 is confirmed. It is further held that the
petitioners would be entitled to work as per their standing in the seniority list
and the University is directed to provide the work to the petitioners as per
their standing in the seniority list. Rule is made absolute in the aforesaid
terms with no order as to costs.
JUDGE
SMP.
