Bombay High Court
Zilla Parishad, Amravati Thr. Its ... vs Suresh S/O Sukhdeorao Ingle And ... on 2 April, 2016
Bench: V.A. Naik
0204wp3145.15-Judgment 1/5
IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY
NAGPUR BENCH, NAGPUR.
WRIT PETITION NO. 3145 OF 2015
PETITIONER :- Zilla Parishad, Amravati through its Chief
Executive Officer, Zilla Parishad, Tq. & Distt.
Amravati.
...VERSUS...
RESPONDENTS :- 1) Suresh s/o Sukhdeorao Ingle, aged adult,
Occu. Service, r/o at & post Kuralpurna,
Tahsil Chandur Bazar, District Amravati.
ig 2) The State of Maharashtra, through its
Secretary, Rural Development Department,
Mantralaya, Mumbai.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Mr. J.B. Kasat, counsel for the petitioner.
Mr. N.R.Saboo, counsel for the respondent No.1.
Mr. H.D.Dubey, Asstt.Govt.Pleader for the respondent No.2.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
CORAM : SMT. VASANTI A. NAIK, J.
DATED : 02.04.2016
O R A L J U D G M E N T
Rule. Rule made returnable forthwith. The petition is heard
finally with the consent of the learned counsel for the parties.
2. By this writ petition, the petitioner-Zilla Parishad challenges the
judgment of the Industrial Court, Amravati, dated 24/09/2014 allowing the
0204wp3145.15-Judgment 2/5
complaint filed by the respondent No.1 under the provisions of the
Maharashtra Recognition of Trade Unions & Prevention of Unfair Labour
Practices Act, 1971 and declaring that the petitioner-Zilla Parishad had
indulged in unfair labour practices under Items 5, 6 and 9 of Schedule IV of
the Act of 1971.
3. The respondent No.1 was appointed by the petitioner-Zilla
Parishad under a scheme in the year 1985 for a period of six months on
contract basis as a Mechanic for maintaining the hand pumps and water
pumps. The name of the respondent No.1 was sponsored by the Employment
Exchange and the respondent No.1 was interviewed by the petitioner-Zilla
Parishad before his appointment. According to the respondent No.1, he
worked as a Mechanic with the petitioner-Zilla Parishad from 1985
continuously only with a break of one day at the end of the contract period.
In 2004 the respondent filed a complaint under the Maharashtra Recognition
of Trade Unions & Prevention of Unfair Labour Practices Act, 1971 alleging
that the petitioner-Zilla Parishad had indulged in unfair labour practices by
not granting the benefits of permanency to the respondent No.1 from the date
of his appointment. The respondent No.1 referred to the cases of two other
employees that were granted the benefits of permanency from the date of
their appointment to allege unfair labour practice by the petitioner. The
Industrial Court, on an appreciation of the material on record and on a
consideration of the judgments rendered by the High Court from time to time
in similar complaints, allowed the complaint filed by the respondent No.1 and
held that the petitioner had indulged in unfair labour practice under Items 5,
6 and 9 of Schedule IV of the Act of 1971. The Industrial Court directed the
petitioner to grant the benefits of permanency and all other service benefits to
0204wp3145.15-Judgment 3/5
the respondent No.1 from the date of his appointment. The order of the
Industrial Court is challenged by the petitioner-Zilla Parishad in the instant
petition.
4. Shri Kasat, the learned counsel for the petitioner-Zilla Parishad,
submitted that the respondent No.1 could not have claimed permanency on
the post of Mechanic, as he was appointed under a scheme from time to time
on contract basis. It is submitted that the benefits of permanency could not
have been awarded in favour of the respondent No.1. It is, however, fairly
submitted that at the time of issuance of notice, this Court had by an order,
dated 03/07/2015 issued the notice on the limited point whether the
respondent No.1 would be entitled to actual monetary benefits from the date
on which the complaint was filed or from the date of his appointment. It is
submitted that in a bunch of writ petitions bearing Writ Petition No.1309 of
2008 and others, decided on 13/04/2015, this Court has held that the
employee would be entitled for actual monetary benefits from the date of
filing of the complaint. It is stated that a similar relief may be granted in this
writ petition also.
5. Shri Saboo, the learned counsel for the respondent No.1,
supported the order passed by the Industrial Court and submitted that a
similar issue was decided by the Industrial Court and similar relief was
granted in favour of the employees therein. It is stated that the said orders of
Industrial Court were challenged by the Zilla Parishad in Writ Petition
Nos.2079, 2080 and 2081 of 2005 and 1182 of 2014 and the orders
dismissing the writ petitions filed by the Zilla Parishad have been upheld by
the Hon'ble Supreme Court. It is submitted that in this background, the
0204wp3145.15-Judgment 4/5
respondent No.1 should be held to be entitled to the monetary benefits from
the date of his appointment and not from the date of filing of the complaint.
The learned counsel sought for the dismissal of the writ petition.
6. On hearing the learned counsel for the parties and on a perusal of
the judgment, dated 13/04/2014 in a bunch of writ petitions bearing Writ
Petition No.1309 of 2008 and others that in almost similar set of facts, this
Court had directed the Zilla Parishad to grant permanency to the similarly
situated employees from the date of their appointment. It is found on a
reading of the said judgment that this Court had granted actual monetary
benefits to the employees from the date of the complaint filed by them before
the Industrial Court and not from the date of their appointment. A similar
order needs to be granted in this writ petition also. It is not in dispute that the
respondent No.1 was working with the petitioner-Zilla Parishad on contract
basis from time to time and the services of the respondent No.1 were
continued by the Zilla Parishad by giving a days break after a period of every
six months. The respondent No.1 did not challenge this action on the part of
the petitioner for nearly twenty years. After nearly twenty years, the
respondent No.1 filed a complaint before the Industrial Court under the
Maharashtra Recognition of Trade Unions & Prevention of Unfair Labour
Practices Act, 1971 alleging unfair labour practice. It is well settled that
monetary relief cannot be granted in favour of a party for more than three
years preceding the date of filing of the proceedings/lis. The respondent No.1
had slept over the matter for nearly twenty years and filed the complaint
before the Industrial Court in the year 2004. In this background, it would not
be just and proper to grant the actual monetary benefits flowing from the
order of permanency to the respondent No.1 from the date of appointment. It
0204wp3145.15-Judgment 5/5
is rightly held in the judgment, dated 13/04/2015 in the bunch of writ
petitions bearing Writ Petition No.1309 of 2008 and others that the employees
would be entitled to the actual monetary benefits only from the date of filing
of the complaint and not from the date of their appointment.
7. Hence, for the reasons aforesaid and also for the reasons recorded
in the judgment, dated 13/04/2015 in the bunch of writ petitions bearing
Writ Petition No.1309 of 2008 and others, the writ petition is partly allowed.
The impugned order of the Industrial Court is modified. The part of the order
directing grant of permanency to the services of the respondent No.1 from the
date of his appointment stands confirmed. Though the respondent No.1 would
be entitled to all the benefits flowing from the order of permanency from the
date of appointment, the actual monetary benefits should be paid to the
respondent No.1 only from the date of filing of the complaint and not from
the date of the appointment. Rule is made absolute in the aforesaid terms
with no order as to costs.
JUDGE
KHUNTE
