Bombay High Court
Narayan Mahadeo Meshram vs Mah.State Electricty ... on 4 August, 2016
Bench: A.S. Chandurkar
204-J-WP-5914-05 1/5
IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY
NAGPUR BENCH, NAGPUR.
WRIT PETITION NO.5914 OF 2005
Narayan s/o Mahadeo Meshram
R/o Maya Nagar, Thawre Colony
Jaripatka, Nagpur ... Petitioner
-vs-
Maharashtra State Electricity
Distribution Company Limited, Nagpur
Zone Katol Road, Nagpur,
Thr. its Chief Engineer ... Respondent.
Shri M. R. Pillai, Advocate for petitioner.
Shri R. E. Moharir, Advocate for respondent.
CORAM : A.S.CHANDURKAR, J.
DATE : August 04, 2016
Oral Judgment :
The petitioner is aggrieved by the order dated 26/03/2003 in the
complaint filed by the petitioner under Section 28 read with Item 9 to
Schedule IV of the Maharashtra Recognition of Trade Unions and Prevention
of Unfair Labour Practices Act, 1971 (for short, the said Act). In short the
case of the petitioner was that he was appointed on the nominal muster roll
on 01/08/1979. He completed a computer training course in the year 1987
and thereafter he worked in the Computer Section of the respondent
establishment as Punch Operator. Thereafter he was transferred from
204-J-WP-5914-05 2/5
Nagpur to Gadchiroli on 01/02/1989. Subsequently, however he was given
the work of Line Helper. According to the petitioner though the work of
Punch Operator was available and services of two junior employees who
were similarly situated was taken as Punch Operator, the petitioner was not
permitted to work as Punch Operator. On that basis he filed the aforesaid
complaint.
2.
In the written statement filed on behalf of the respondent-Board,
it was pleaded that the appointment of the petitioner was as a casual
labourer. Though the petitioner had obtained qualifications subsequently,
the recruitment on the post of Punch Operator had to be by following the
procedure prescribed. It was further pleaded that as per the settlement of
1975, the petitioner was taken on the post of Line Helper from 21/01/1989
and he accepted the same without any protest.
3. The parties led evidence before the Industrial Court and by the
impugned judgment, the Labour Court held that the petitioner had failed to
make out any case of unfair labour practice at the hands of the respondents.
It was held that the petitioner was not entitled for regularisation on the post
of Punch Operator.
4. Shri M. Pillai, the learned counsel for the petitioner submitted
204-J-WP-5914-05 3/5
that there was sufficient material on record to hold that the petitioner had
proved his case. He referred to the deposition of the witness examined on
behalf of the respondent to the effect that two employees viz. Shri Takalkar
and Shri Jumale who had been working as Helpers were subsequently
working as Data Entry Operators. According to him, as the petitioner was
duly qualified to held the said post, he could not be denied relief on the
reasons assigned by the learned Member of the Industrial Court. He
therefore submitted that the impugned judgment was liable to be set aside.
5. Shri R. E. Moharir, the learned counsel for the respondent
supported the impugned order. There was no pleading in the complaint so
as to attract the provisions of Item 5 to Schedule IV of the said Act.
According to him, the complaint was filed under Item 9 alleging failure to
implement award, settlement or agreement. The petitioner was initially
working on nominal muster roll and was given some work as Data Entry
Operator. However, his services were regularised as Line Helper which
order of regularisation was accepted without any protest. The work as Data
Entry Operator was only for a short period and therefore the complaint was
rightly dismissed by the Industrial Court.
6. I have given due consideration to the aforesaid submissions. It is
not in dispute that the initial entry of the petitioner was on nominal muster
204-J-WP-5914-05 4/5
roll on 01/08/1979. The petitioner thereafter obtained Diploma in Data
Processing and a training programme was also completed by him. The work
of Data Operator was done by the petitioner from 02/02/1988 to
13/02/1989. As per the settlement of 1975, he was appointed on regular
basis as Line Helper on 21/01/1989. In the aforesaid facts, if the evidence
on record is considered, it cannot be said that the case that the respondent
had committed unfair labour practice under Item 9 of Schedule IV had been
made out. The only basis for claiming relief in the complaint was the
regularisation of Shri Takalkar and Shri Jumale. This has been explained by
the respondent to the effect that similar work had been assigned for a short
period of time. It was found that the post of Punch Operator was a higher
post than the post of Line Helper on which the services of the petitioner had
been regularised. The observations of the learned Member that the
assignment of work of Punch Operator for a short period by way of stop gap
arrangement did not create any right in favour of the petitioner are therefore
justified. In the light of aforesaid material on record, the conclusion arrived
at by the learned Member cannot be faulted.
In view of aforesaid discussion, I do not find any jurisdictional
error committed by the Industrial Court. The writ petition is therefore
dismissed with no order as to costs.
JUDGE
Asmita
204-J-WP-5914-05 5/5
-: C E R T I F I C A T E :-
" I certify that this Judgment/order uploaded is a true and
correct copy of the original signed Judgment/order."
Uploaded by :
Asmita A. Bhandakkar
Personal Assistant
Uploaded on : 09/08/2016
