Bombay High Court
Abhiman Maroti Kale vs The State Of Mah And Ors on 19 August, 2016
Bench: R.V. Ghuge
1
IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE OF BOMBAY
BENCH AT AURANGABAD
WRIT PETITION NO.610 OF 2008
Abhiman Maroti Kale,
Age-50 years, Occu-Service,
R/o Kakade Plot, Osmanabad,
Tq. and Dist. Osmanabad -- PETITIONER
VERSUS
1. The State of Maharashtra,
Through the Secretary,
Irrigation Department,
Mantralaya Vistar, Mumbai-32,
2. The Director,
Godawari Khore Vikas Mahamandal,
Garkheda, Aurangabad,
3. The Superintending Engineer,
Osmanabad Irrigation, Circle
Osmanabad, Tq. and Dist.
Osmanabad,
4. The Executive Engineer,
Nimna Dudhna Prakalp,
Division Sailu, Tq. Sailu,
Dist. Parbhani,
5. The Executive Engineer,
Patbandhare Survey Anveshan Division,
Osmanabad, Tq. and Dist. Osmanabad,
6. The Executive Engineer,
Majalgaon Kalva No.7,
Gangakhed, Dist. Parbhani. -- RESPONDENTS
Mr.Arvind S.Deshmukh, Advocate for the applicant.
Mr.A.P.Chaware, Advocate for respondent Nos. 1 to 6.
khs/AUGUST 2016/610-d
( CORAM : RAVINDRA V. GHUGE, J.)
DATE : 19/08/2016
ORAL JUDGMENT :
1. The petitioner is aggrieved by the judgment dated 28/06/2006
delivered by the Labour Court thereby dismissing Complaint (ULP)
No.16/2005 for being untenable in law. Similarly, the petitioner is
aggrieved by the judgment dated 16/08/2007, by which his Revision
(ULP) No.77/2006 has been dismissed.
2. I have considered the submissions of Mr.Deshmukh for the
petitioner and Mr.Chawre, learned Advocate for respondent Nos. 1 to 6.
3. The petitioner alongwith several other co-workers had
approached this Court in WP No.935/1985 challenging their
termination after having worked for about 6 years or more. This
Court transferred the writ petition to the Maharashtra Administrative
Tribunal. By its order dated 27/03/1996, all the transfer
applications were disposed of by directing the respondents/
authorities to prepare a seniority list and offer work to the workers.
Consequentially, the petitioner was reinstated in 1996. He was
subsequently terminated on 31/01/2003. His ULP complaint and
khs/AUGUST 2016/610-d
revision petition, as noted above, have been dismissed on the ground
that he should approach the Maharashtra Administrative Tribunal.
4. The co-workers of the petitioner, who were party to the
proceedings before the M.A.T., had directly approached this Court in
WP No.281/2003 and were granted interim relief on 20/02/2003 by
virtue of which they continued in service. Subsequently, when the
petitions came up for final hearing, this Court, by its order dated
02/02/2015 disposed of the writ petitions and granted liberty to the
petitioners to approach the M.A.T. Interim relief granted earlier was
continued for a period of 4 (four) weeks.
5. Considering the above and the fact that the Labour Court and
the Industrial Court have concluded that the complaint filed by the
petitioner was not maintainable, this petition is disposed of by
granting the same liberty to the petitioner as has been granted to his
co-workers by the order of this Court dated 02/02/2015 in WP
Nos.281/2003, 283/2003 and 428/2003. Needless to state, none of
the observations made by the Labour Court or the Industrial Court
with regard to the merits of the cause of action shall come in way of
the petitioner. Similarly, the time spent by the petitioner before the
Labour Court from 03/02/2003 till the disposal of this petition today
khs/AUGUST 2016/610-d
shall be a good ground for condonation of delay, if any. All
contentions of the petitioner are kept open.
6. Rule is discharged. No costs.
( RAVINDRA V. GHUGE, J.)
khs/AUGUST 2016/610-d
