Bombay High Court
Associate Director ... vs State Of Maharashtra And Others on 21 April, 2016
Bench: R.V. Ghuge
1
IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE OF BOMBAY
BENCH AT AURANGABAD
WRIT PETITION NO.2894 OF 1999
1. The Associate Director Research,
National Agricultural Research Project,
Paithan Road, Aurangabad
2. Marathwada Agricultural University,
PETITIONERS
Parbhani, Through its Registrar
VERSUS
1. The State of Maharashtra
2. Dnyaneshwar Chandrabhan Ghogare,
Age-36 years, Occu-Labourer,
R/o Rahulnagar, Paithan Road,
Aurangabad,
3. Nana Sampat More,
Age-36 years, Occu-Labourer,
R/o As above.
4. Ashok Mahadu Jadhav,
Age-34 years, Occu-Labourer,
R/o As above. RESPONDENTS
Mr.D.R.Irale Patil, Advocate for the petitioner.
Mr.V.P.Latange, Advocate for the respondent Nos. 2 to 4.
Mrs.S.S.Raut, AGP for respondent No.1.
( CORAM : RAVINDRA V. GHUGE, J.)
DATE : 21/04/2016
ORAL JUDGMENT :
1. This petition was Admitted by this Court on 15/06/1999 and
interim relief was granted in terms of prayer clause "C" which reads
khs/April 2016/2894-d
as under :-
"Pending hearing and final disposal of this writ petition, the
judgment and order passed by the learned Member, Industrial
Court, Aurangabad in ULP No.39/1994 (Exh. ) be kindly
stayed."
2. The petitioners are aggrieved by the judgment and order dated
26/02/1999 delivered by the Industrial Court, Aurangabad by which
the complaint was partly allowed.
3. 5 complainants had preferred a joint complaint. Claim was
made for parity in wages and for permanency. The claims of
complainant Nos.3 and 5 have been rejected and the claims of
complainant Nos. 1,2 and 4 have been allowed only to the extent of
granting them parity in wages for the days they have actually worked
as skilled labourers in accordance with the circular dated
31/05/1988. This relief is granted from 01/01/1999. The prayer for
permanency with regard to all the original complainants has been
rejected and none of them have approached this Court against the
said rejection.
4. Mr.Irale Patil, learned Advocate appearing on behalf of the
petitioners has strenuously criticized the impugned judgment. He
khs/April 2016/2894-d
submits that though the first complainant claimed to be a Driver
from 16/11/1988, he actually worked as a Cleaner. Complainant
No.2 though claimed to be a Wireman from 15/02/1983, is not a
skilled employee. Complainant No.4 though claims to be an
Observation Assistant from 15/05/1986, is not a skilled employee.
5. He further submits that these 3 original complainants, who are
respondent Nos. 2, 3 and 4 herein, were temporarily engaged as daily
wagers. They have not worked continuously. There was no
appointment order issued. There was no selection process followed
while engaging them as daily wagers.
6. He submits that the Industrial Court has erroneously
concluded that these 3 respondents performed work of a skilled
nature and none of them are entitled for wages payable to skilled
labourers. He has criticized the conclusions drawn by the Industrial
Court and submits that merely because some Officer of the
petitioner/University has issued Experience Certificate to these 3
respondents, it would not convert them from unskilled daily wagers
into skilled daily wagers. He, therefore, prays for quashing and
setting aside of the impugned judgment to the extent of these 3
respondents.
khs/April 2016/2894-d
7. Mr.Latange, learned Advocate submits that during the
pendency of this petition, respondent No.3 Nana Sampat More has
been granted regularization. Mr.Latange is instructed to make this
statement by the said respondent.
8. Mr.Latange has drawn my attention to the conclusions arrived
at by the Industrial Court from paragraph No.13 onwards. He
submits that Experience Certificate was issued by the competent
Officers of the petitioners which were produced before the Industrial
Court, duly proved and exhibited. The certificate indicates that
complainant No.1 was driving a jeep, a tractor and a mini bus from
16/11/1988. Experience Certificate is issued on 11/08/1989.
9. He submits that the Experience Certificate issued to
complainant No.2 indicates that he was working for a long time. The
said complainant Nana More has now been regularized in
employment as a Wireman.
10. He further submits that complainant No.4 was working as an
"Observation Assistant". His name is shown in the list of the
employees produced on record by the petitioners.
khs/April 2016/2894-d
11. He further submits that the circular at Exh.U-7/3 mentions
that the vehicle driver, truck driver, tractor driver would be treated as
Skilled Workers. Said circular also states that Observation Assistant
and Wireman shall be treated as Skilled Worker. It is not the case of
the petitioners that the circular Exhibit U-7/3 was not applicable to
the respondents. He, therefore, submits that the Industrial Court
has rightly granted parity in wages to these 3 respondents based on
the circular issued by the petitioners.
12. I have considered the submissions of the learned Advocates.
13. It is not in dispute that prayer clause "B" of complaint (ULP)
No.39/94 pertains to a claim for permanency put forth by the 5
complainants. The claim of permanency with regard to all the
complainants has been rejected by the Industrial Court and such
rejection has not been challenged by any of the workers in this Court.
Similarly, the claim of complainant No.3 Bhanudas Dattatraya
Thange and complainant No.5 Harishchandra Balaji Gaikwad has
been rejected on all grounds. They have not challenged such
rejection before this Court.
14. Complainant No.1 Dnyaneshwar, Complainant No.2 Nana and
khs/April 2016/2894-d
complainant No.4 Ashok have partly succeeded in the Industrial
Court. The whole issue turns upon the circular at Exhibit U-7/3
dated 31/05/1988. In the said circular, the Vehicle Driver,
Observation Assistant and Wireman are treated as skilled employees.
The petitioners do not contend that the circular has been issued by
an incompetent authority or is wrongly issued.
15.
As such, the conclusion of the Industrial Court is that
whenever respondent Nos. 2 to 4 have worked as a Vehicle Driver,
Wireman and Observation Assistant, they would be entitled to the
wages payable to skilled employees. Such a conclusion based on the
circular of the petitioners cannot be termed as being a perverse or
erroneous conclusion.
16. In the light of the above, I do not find that the impugned
judgment could be termed as being perverse or erroneous or likely to
cause grave injustice to the petitioner/University.
17. This petition, being devoid of merit, is therefore, dismissed.
Rule is discharged.
( RAVINDRA V. GHUGE, J.)
khs/April 2016/2894-d
