Bombay High Court
Jalgaon Muncipal Council vs Eknath Shravan Patil on 8 December, 2016
Bench: R.V. Ghuge
*1* 902.wp.1962.97.group
IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY
BENCH AT AURANGABAD
WRIT PETITION NO. 1962 OF 1997
Jalgaon Municipal Council,
Jalgaon. Through its
Chief Officer.
...PETITIONER
-VERSUS-
Milind Kashinath Jagtap,
Age : 31 years, Occupation :
residing at 28 Ramdas Peth,
Jalgaon. ig ...RESPONDENT
WITH
WRIT PETITION NO.1963 OF 1997
Jalgaon Municipal Council,
Jalgaon. Through its
Chief Officer.
...PETITIONER
-VERSUS-
Sk.Rais Sk.Gayas,
Age : Major, Occupation :
residing at 9/B, Iqbal Housing
Society, Meharun Taluka and
District Jalgaon.
...RESPONDENT
WITH
WRIT PETITION NO.1964 OF 1997
Jalgaon Municipal Council,
Jalgaon. Through its
Chief Officer.
...PETITIONER
-VERSUS-
::: Uploaded on - 13/12/2016 ::: Downloaded on - 14/12/2016 00:25:17 :::
*2* 902.wp.1962.97.group
Eknath Shravan Patil,
Age : Major, Occupation :
residing at 118 Ram Peth,
Jalgaon.
...RESPONDENT
WITH
WRIT PETITION NO.1965 OF 1997
Jalgaon Municipal Council,
Jalgaon. Through its
Chief Officer.
...PETITIONER
-VERSUS-
Ramesh Dattatraya Shankhpal,
Age : Major, Occupation :
residing at Rampeth, Bhoite Lane,
Jalgaon.
...RESPONDENT
WITH
WRIT PETITION NO.1966 OF 1997
Jalgaon Municipal Council,
Jalgaon. Through its
Chief Officer.
...PETITIONER
-VERSUS-
Ramesh Bhawdu Dhande,
Age : Major, Occupation :
residing at C/o Shri S.P.Attarde,
House No.79, B-Shrikrishna Colony,
Shivkrupa Building, Jalgaon.
...RESPONDENT
WITH
WRIT PETITION NO.1967 OF 1997
::: Uploaded on - 13/12/2016 ::: Downloaded on - 14/12/2016 00:25:17 :::
*3* 902.wp.1962.97.group
Jalgaon Municipal Council,
Jalgaon. Through its
Chief Officer.
...PETITIONER
-VERSUS-
Bhimrao Baburao Patil,
Age : Major, Occupation :
residing at Turkheda,
Post Veedgaon, Taluka and
District Jalgaon.
...RESPONDENT
...
Advocate for Petitioner : Shri P R Patil.
Advocate for Respondent in Writ Petition No.1964/1997 : Shri L.V.Sangit
h/f Shri S.V.Dixit.
Advocate for Respondents in WP Nos.1962/1997 and 1965/1997 : Shri
K.S.Patil (ABSENT).
Advocate for Respondent in WP Nos.1963/1997, 1966/1997 and
1967/1997 : Shri R.R.Patil (ABSENT).
...
CORAM: RAVINDRA V. GHUGE, J.
DATE :- 08th December, 2016
Oral Judgment :
1 In all these petitions, the Jalgaon Municipal Council, which is
now the Jalgaon City Municipal Corporation, is aggrieved by the
judgments and awards delivered by the Labour Court which are as under:-
Sr.No. Writ Name of Employee/ Reference Date of
Petition No. Respondent (IDA) No. Award
1 1962/1997 Milind Kashinath Jagtap No.11/94 01/01/96
2 1963/1997 Sk.Rais Sk.Gayas No.16/94 06/01/96
3 1964/1997 Eknath Shravan Patil No.21/95 27.03.1996
*4* 902.wp.1962.97.group
4 1965/1997 Ramesh Dattatraya No.10/94 20.08.1996
Shankhpal
5 1966/1997 Lomesh Bhawdu Dhande No.21/94 16.10.1996
6 1967/1997 Bhimrao Baburao Patil No.17/94 04/11/96
2 All these petitions were admitted by this Court on
12.06.1997. However, interim relief was not granted to the Petitioner.
3 I have considered the strenuous submissions of Shri Patil,
learned Advocate on behalf of the Petitioner and Shri Sangit, learned
Advocate on behalf of the Respondent in Writ Petition No.1964/1997.
Despite service and causing an appearance on behalf of rest of the
Respondents, none appeared on 01.12.2016. None appear even today.
4 Shri Patil has strenuously submitted that the Labour Court
could not have delivered the impugned awards without considering as to
whether, the appointments of these Respondents were in accordance with
Section 76 of the Maharashtra Municipal Councils, Nagar Panchayats and
Industrial Townships Act, 1965 (for short "the 1965 Act"). He submits that
unless the procedure for selection and appointment is not followed under
Section 76 of the 1965 Act, no reliefs can be granted to any of these
Respondents as they do not have a right to claim reinstatement or
continued employment.
*5* 902.wp.1962.97.group
5 Shri Patil further points out that amongst the Respondents,
one employee is a Technical Supervisor, one is a Mukadam and one is a
Health Inspector. They are not "workmen" within the meaning of Section
2(s) of the Industrial Disputes Act, 1947 and as such, their cases could not
have been maintained before the Labour Court.
6 Shri Patil has placed before me the Chart with regard to these
Respondents/ Employees as on date. The same is marked as Exhibit X for
identification. It, therefore, appears that all these Respondents, pursuant
to the refusal of interim relief by this Court, have been reinstated by the
Petitioner/ Establishment and they are presently in employment. They
were denied back wages as they have filed the Purshis before the Labour
Court and were only granted continuity in service.
7 In the light of the above, these Writ Petitions could be
disposed of by considering the issue of wages from the date of the awards
till the date of actual reinstatement. I am not considering the submissions
of the Petitioner on other counts as recorded above for the reason that all
these Respondents have now settled in employment. It also needs to be
noted that the issue of regularization is not before this Court in these
matters.
*6* 902.wp.1962.97.group
8 Shri Sangit strenuously prays for back wages from the date of
the award. I am, however, not inclined to accept the said submission for
the reason that the Respondents had given up the claim for back wages
and pursuant to the publication of the award, within one month these
Respondents have been reinstated after this Court did not grant interim
relief in June, 1997. Rather than reopening the entire dispute in between
the parties, ends of justice would be met by disposing of these Writ
Petitions with the observation that the Respondents would not be entitled
for back wages till their dates of reinstatement. However, they are entitled
for continuity as has been granted by the Labour Court.
9 In the light of the above, this Writ Petitions are partly
allowed. Without causing interference in the impugned awards, the
Respondents would be precluded from claiming back wages from the date
of the awards till the dates of their reinstatement since they have already
been reinstated in service and have settled in employment.
10 Rule is made partly absolute in the above terms.
kps (RAVINDRA V. GHUGE, J.)
