Maharashtra State Road Transport ... vs Maharashtra State Transport ...
2009 Latest Caselaw 35 Bom

                                     1
           IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY
                         NAGPUR BENCH




                                                                    
               WRIT PETITION NO. 2799   OF  2005




                                            
     Maharashtra State Road Transport




                                           
     Corporation, through the 
     Divisional Controller, Nagpur
     Division, Nagpur.                        ...   PETITIONER




                                 
                         Versus
                    
     1. Maharashtra State Transport
        Kamgar Sanghatana by its
        Divisional Secretary, 
                   
        c/o Maharashtra State Road
        Transport Corporation,
        Divisional Office, Station Road,
        Nagpur.
      


     2. Smt. Shobha Ramkrishna Uikey,
   



        wd/o Ramkrishna Raoji Uikey,
        aged about 43 years, r/o 
        Sadbhaona Nagar, Plot No. 89,





        Nagpur.                                ...   RESPONDENTS



     Shri S.C. Mehadia, Advocate for the petitioner.





                         .....

                                 CORAM :  B.P. DHARMADHIKARI, J.

DECEMBER 08, 2009.

ORAL JUDGMENT :

By this writ petition filed under Articles 226 and 227

of Constitution of India, the petitioner - employer has questioned

the order dated 10.01.2005 passed by the Industrial Court,

Nagpur, allowing Complaint (ULPN) No. 348 of 1997 filed by

present respondents and directed it to provide employment as

Cleaner on compassionate ground within two months. This

Court issued notice on 21.07.2005 and again on 24.11.2006 as

nobody appeared for the respondents.

2. On 06.06.2007 as nobody appeared for the

respondents, Rule was issued in the matter and interim relief was

granted. Both the respondents are again served with notice of

Rule and they have chosen not to appear.

3. Shri Mehadia, learned counsel for the petitioner states

that the learned Member of Industrial Court has erred in

directing the petitioner to provide employment to Respondent

No.2 within two months overlooking the fact that her name was

at Sr. No. 53 in waiting list for grant of compassionate

employment. He points out that as there was ban on grant of

such employment and issue was pending before the Hon'ble

Apex Court, the employment could not be given. He further

states that at the time of filing of ULP Complaint, the name

appeared at Sr. No. 53 and at the time of filing of writ petition,

at Sr. No. 40 as on 30.06.2005. He points out that before the

Industrial Court, Respondent No.2 never made grievance that

any persons below her in that waiting list have been provided

with such employment by superseding her claim and Industrial

Court has not recorded any finding. According to him, in this

situation, mere non production of that waiting list before the

Industrial Court, could not have been treated as fatal to the

defence of present petitioner. He further states that the

petitioner is even today ready and willing to provide employment

to Respondent No.2 has and when her turn comes.

4. I have perused the complaint as filed by the

respondents before Industrial Court and also written statement

filed by present petitioner. The petitioner had disclosed

necessary facts in the written statement in para 4 and those facts

were not in dispute before Industrial Court. In these

circumstances, the learned Member of Industrial Court could not

have disbelieved the petitioner merely because the said waiting

list was not placed on record. It should have noticed that there

was no dispute about the name of Respondent No.2 at Sr. No. 53

and Respondent No.2 was not coming with a case that her claim

was superseded.

5. The direction to grant employment to Respondent No.

2 within two months is, therefore, unsustainable. The said

direction is, therefore, quashed and set aside. However, it is

made clear that the petitioner is duty bound to provide

employment to Respondent No.2 as per her position in seniority

list and whenever her turn matures therefor as per law. The

petitioner to communicate this order to Respondent No.2 by

R.P.A.D.

6. Writ Petition is disposed of. Rule accordingly.

However, in the facts and circumstances of the case, there shall

be no order as to costs.

                                              
                                                 JUDGE                           




                                  
                     ig              *******

     *GS.