Bombay High Court
The State Of Maharashtra And ... vs Narsinha Lakshmanrao Pangudwale on 26 August, 2016
Bench: S.P. Deshmukh
{1} rast33405-14
drp
IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE OF BOMBAY
BENCH AT AURANGABAD
REVIEW APPLICATION STAMP NO.33405 OF 2014
IN
WRIT PETITION NO.161 OF 2014
1. The State of Maharashtra APPLICANTS
Through the Deputy Director,
Vocational Education and Training
P. B. No.456, Nashik Road,
Nashik
2. The Principal,
Government Industrial Training Institute
M.I.D.C. Post, Tilaknagar,
Taluka - Shrirampur,
District - Ahmednagar
VERSUS
Narsinha Lakshmanrao Pangudwle RESPONDENT
Age - 43 years, Occ - Service
R/o Behind Maruti Mandir,
Bhushannagar, Kedgaon,
Ahmednagar
.......
Mr. A. P. Basarkar, AGP for applicants-State
Mr. Parag V. Barde, Advocate for respondent
.......
[CORAM : SUNIL P. DESHMUKH, J.]
DATE : 26th AUGUST, 2016
ORAL JUDGMENT :
1. Rule. Rule made absolute and heard learned advocates for
the parties finally with consent.
{2} rast33405-14
2. Review of order dated 13th March, 2014 passed by this
court in writ petition No.1621 of 2014 is sought.
3. It appears that the respondent-complainant had been a
daily wager and complaint filed by him against his termination
had been allowed, directing reinstatement with continuity in
service, all through up to this court, pursuant to which the
respondent has been provided with work on which he has been
previously working i.e. of a daily wager. It is thereafter, the
respondent-complainant, by filing Complaint (ULP) No.71 of
2011 in the Industrial Court, claimed permanency benefits,
which had been granted and writ petition at the instance of
present applicant has been decided considering that posts were
available from a very long time. This position does not appear to
be disputed.
4. In the grounds being now raised for review, it is contended
that pursuant to policy of 2006 it would not be appropriate to
absorb the respondent-complainant on a permanent post. It is
further being submitted that this is a public employment and as
such, employment to the same shall be within the parameters of
the constitutional scheme, especially in compliance of Articles,
14, 16, 315, 320 and 335 of the Constitution of India and it
{3} rast33405-14
would not be a case that while the service of the respondent
would be regularized, it would be in consonance with the
scheme.
5. Learned advocate for the respondent-complainant relies on
a judgment in the case of "Maharashtra State Road Transport
Corporation and Another V/s. Kasteribe Rajya P. Karmachari Sanghatana"
reported in AIR 2009 SC (Supp) 2656. He refers to head note "A" of
said citation, which reads thus -
"A. Maharashtra Recognition of Trade Unions and Prevention of
Unfair Labour Practices Act (1 of 1972), S.30, S.32, Sch.4, Item 6 -
Unfair Labour Practice - Regularization and conferring permanency
status on workers - Decision in 2006 AIR SCW 1991 - Cannot be held to
have overridden powers of Industrial and Labour Courts in passing
orders u/S. 30, once unfair labour practice is established - Thus
direction of giving status, wages and all other benefits of permanency to
workers affected by unfair labour practice - Not liable to interfered
with."
6. Learned advocate for the respondent, thus submits that
while the respondent - complainant had been terminated from
service, permanent posts were available and thereafter,
Complaint (ULP) No.22 of 2004 filed by the respondent-
complainant had been allowed by the Labour Court directing
reinstatement with continuity of service. However, while doing so
benefits of permanency in the meanwhile accrued by virtue of
{4} rast33405-14
said order, were not being given to the respondent-complainant
and as such, a further proceedings Complaint (ULP) No.71 of
2011 for the same ensued before Industrial Court under
Maharashtra Recognition of Trade Unions and Prevention of
Unfair Labour Practice Act, which came to be finally decided in
writ petition No.1621 of 2014 dismissing the writ petition of
present applicants. He further submits that quite a few similarly
situated employees have received benefit of permanency. He
submits that the policy decision of 2006 would not be able to
withhold benefits which had already accrued to the respondent-
complainant.
7. It is not disputed that the respondent-complainant is a
class IV employee and that there are permanent posts available
and further that quite a few similarly situated persons have
received benefits of permanency. The ruling cited on behalf of
the respondent-complainant observes that Industrial and Labour
Courts would have power to order permanency to workers, who
have been victims of unfair labour practice under Item 6 of
Schedule IV of the MRTU and PULP Act, where posts on which
they have been working exist and that the decision of the
Supreme Court in the case of "State of Karnataka and Others V/s
Umadevi and Others" reported in 2006 AIR SCW 1991 would not have
{5} rast33405-14
effect of overriding powers of Industiral court in passing order
under section 30 of the MRTU and PULP Act once unfair labour
practice under Item 6 Schedule 4 is established.
8. Learned AGP appearing for the applicants does not dispute
that the order passed by the Industrial court is with reference to
section 30 of the MRTU and PULP Act and hold the employer
guilty of unfair labour practice under Item 6 of Schedule IV of
the MRTU and PULP Act.
9. In the circumstances, it does not appear to be a case
where a review of the order passed on 13 th March, 2014 in writ
petition No.1621 of 2014 would be entertained on the grounds
pressed into service while hearing the review application.
10. Review application as such, stands dismissed. Rule stands
discharged.
[SUNIL P. DESHMUKH, J.]
drp/rast33405-14
{6} rast33405-14
drp
IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE OF BOMBAY
BENCH AT AURANGABAD
CIVIL APPLICATION NO.12838 OF 2014
IN
REVIEW APPLICATION STAMP NO.33405 OF 2014
IN
WRIT PETITION NO.161 OF 2014
The State of Maharashtra and Another APPLICANTS
VERSUS
Narsinha Lakshmanrao Pangudwle RESPONDENT
ig .......
Mr. A. P. Basarkar, AGP for applicants-State
Mr. Parag V. Barde, Advocate for respondent
.......
[CORAM : SUNIL P. DESHMUKH, J.]
DATE : 26th AUGUST, 2016
ORDER :
. For the reasons contained in civil application, the delay
stands condoned and the application stands allowed in terms of
prayer clause "B" and is disposed of.
[SUNIL P. DESHMUKH, J.]
drp/rast33405-14
