Superintending Engr.Irrigation ... vs Nandu Bansi Pawar
2016 Latest Caselaw 5028 Bom

                                         1




                                                                          
             IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE OF BOMBAY   
                         BENCH AT AURANGABAD




                                                  
                          WRIT PETITION NO.1161 OF 1998
                                       WITH
                        CIVIL APPLICATION NO.11172 OF 2016




                                                 
    1.     The Superintending Engineer,
           Irrigation Project Investigation
           Circle, Sinchanbhavan,
           Aurangabad,




                                        
    2.     The Executive Engineer,
           Water Resources Division,
                              
           Opp. to CADA Office,
           Near Gajanan Maharaj Mandir,
           Aurangabad,
                             
    3.     The Deputy Engineer,
           Water Resources Sub Division No.1,
           Plot No.116, Garkheda Area,
           Shastri Nagar, Aurangabad                   --       PETITIONERS
      


           VERSUS
   



    Digambar S/o Sahebrao Inge,
    Age-Major, Occu-Service,
    R/o At Post : Samangaon,





    Tq. Shevgaon, Dist. Ahmednagar                     --       RESPONDENT 

WITH WRIT PETITION NO.1162 OF 1998

1. The Superintending Engineer, Irrigation Project Investigation Circle, Sinchanbhavan, Aurangabad,

2. The Executive Engineer, Water Resources Division, Opp. To CADA Office, Near Gajanan Maharaj Mandir, Aurangabad

khs/AUGUST 2016/1161-d

3. The Dy.Engineer,

Water Resources Sub Division No.1, Plot No.116, Garkheda Area, Shastri Nagar, Aurangabad - PETITIONER

VERSUS

Nandu Bansi Pawar, Age-24 years, Occu-Service, R/o : at Bhagoor, Post : Warood,

Tq.Shevgaon, Dist.Ahmednagar - RESPONDENT

ig WITH WRIT PETITION NO.1163 OF 1998

1. The Superintending Engineer,

Irrigation Project Investigation Circle, Sinchanbhavan, Aurangabad,

2. The Executive Engineer,

Water Resources Division, Opp. to CADA Office,

Near Gajanan Maharaj Mandir, Aurangabad,

3. The Deputy Engineer,

Water Resources Sub Division No.1, Plot No.116, Garkheda Area, Shastri Nagar, Aurangabad -- PETITIONERS

VERSUS

Ashok Sahebrao Nagre, Age-Major, Occu-Service, R/o Shevgaon, Tq. Shevgaon, Dist. Ahmednagar -- RESPONDENT

Mr.S.D.Kaldate, AGP for the petitioners/State. Mr.S.D.Ghayal, Advocate for the respondent in WP No.1161/1998. Mr.Sandeep Swami h/f Mr.V.D.Gunale, Advocate for the respondent in WP No.1163/1998.

khs/AUGUST 2016/1161-d

( CORAM : RAVINDRA V. GHUGE, J.)

DATE : 29/08/2016

ORAL JUDGMENT :

1. In all these matters, the petitioner/Department has challenged

the judgments of the Industrial Court by which the ULP complaints

of the respondents/employees have been allowed and the petitioners

are directed to regularize their services with benefits incidental and

consequential thereto.

2. While admitting these petitions, this Court, by its order dated

16/03/1998, had stayed the impugned judgments only to the extent

of the payment of back wages.

3. By a detailed order dated 29/08/1998, this Court admitted the

petitions and by placing reliance upon the judgment of the Hon'ble

Supreme court in the matter of Executive Engineer, State of

Karnataka Vs. K.Somsetty, 1997(2) CLR 387 and in the matter of

Himanshu Kumar Vs. State of Bihar, 1997(2) CLR 15, refused to

grant interim relief to the petitioner.

4. It is informed that in WP No.1162/1998, the respondent/

khs/AUGUST 2016/1161-d

employee has passed away and his legal heirs have been brought on

record.

5. I have considered the strenuous submissions of the learned

AGP who has criticized the impugned judgments. Contention is that

the petitioners cannot create posts and as such there cannot be a

declaration that the petitioner/department has indulged in unfair

labour practices.

6. The learned AGP has specifically pointed out clause 3 of the

Government circular dated 10/05/1991, which covers the daily wage

employees of the petitioner/establishment. He submits that the

specific provision made thereunder was with regard to entering the

names of such daily wagers on Converted Regular Temporary

Establishment (CRTE) as per the recommendations of the Kalelkar

Award, only if they have completed 5 years in continuous employment

as on 31/07/1991. He further points out that none of the

respondents had completed 5 years as on 31/07/1991. They,

therefore, were not entitled to any benefit under the said circular,

which the Industrial Court has erroneously lost sight of.

Consequentially, the impugned judgment on the basis of the said

circular dated 10/05/1991, cannot be sustained.

khs/AUGUST 2016/1161-d

7. I do find that the contentions of the learned AGP deserve

consideration. Purely based on the circular dated 10/05/1991, the

impugned judgment of the Industrial Court calls for an interference.

However, by the civil application, the respondents have brought on

record a government resolution which was subsequently introduced

on 24/04/2001, by which the benefits of the Kalelkar Settlement

were made available to all those daily wage employees who have been

working and have completed 5 years in employment latest by

31/12/1998. On the basis of the record available and which was

perused by the Industrial Court, these respondents are squarely

covered by the said government resolution dated 24/04/2001.

8. As such, the impugned judgments can be suitably modified so

as to ensure that the ends of justice are met in the light of the

subsequent government resolution.

9. As such, these petitions are partly allowed. The declaration of

ULP against the petitioners is set aside. Considering the effect of the

government resolution dated 24/04/2001 and keeping in view that

the respondents in the first and third petition have been working for

almost about 29 years, the petitioners can be directed to submit their

proposals expeditiously, if not already submitted and take a decision

khs/AUGUST 2016/1161-d

thereon.

10. The respondent in WP No.1162/1998 has passed away on

24/11/2007. The proposals of these respondents are already

pending before the appropriate authorities of the petitioner.

Consequentially, the pending proposal of the two respondents namely

Digambar Sahebrao Inge and Ashok Sahebrao Nagre shall be decided

as expeditiously as possible and preferably within a period of 12

(twelve) weeks from today in the light of the government resolution

dated 24/04/2001. They shall therefore be entitled to the benefits of

the Kalelkar Settlement based on their seniority and by considering

their dates, on which they completed 5 years, which shall be the date

on which they would have been treated to be brought on CRTE.

11. So also, the benefits on similar grounds as would have been

available to the deceased Nandu Pawar, shall be calculated by the

petitioner/department and the said benefits shall be extended only to

his widow, who has been brought on record in WP No.1162/1998,

within a period of 16 weeks from today.

12. Rule is made partly absolute in the above terms.

khs/AUGUST 2016/1161-d

13. The civil application, in the light of the above, therefore stands

allowed.

( RAVINDRA V. GHUGE, J.)

khs/AUGUST 2016/1161-d