Bombay High Court
Ahmednagar Muncipal Council vs Shaikh Manzur Ahmed Shamshoddin on 20 December, 2016
Bench: R.V. Ghuge
WP/3406/1997
1
IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE OF BOMBAY
BENCH AT AURANGABAD
WRIT PETITION NO. 3406 OF 1997
Ahmednagar Municipal Council,
Ahmednagar, through its
Chief Officer, Ahmednagar. ..Petitioner
Versus
Shaikh Manzur Ahmed Shamshoddin
Age 35 years, Occupation Nil,
R/o 5904, Takhti Darwaja,
Ahmednagar. ..Respondent
ig ...
Advocate for Petitioner : Shri V.S.Bedre
Advocate for Respondent : Shri Yuvraj S Choudhari
...
CORAM : RAVINDRA V. GHUGE, J.
Dated: December 20, 2016
...
ORAL JUDGMENT :-
1. The petitioner is aggrieved by the judgment and order dated
22.6.1995 delivered by the Industrial Court, by which, Revision (ULP)
No.38 of 1992, filed by the respondent was partly allowed and he was
granted reinstatement with continuity and 50% backwages. By the
same judgment, Revision (ULP) No.51 of 1992, filed by the petitioner
was dismissed.
2. This petition was admitted and the direction to pay backwages
was stayed on 28.8.1997. Consequentially, the respondent was
reinstated in service on 16.9.1997. It is informed by the respondent
WP/3406/1997
that he worked from 16.9.1997 and retired upon attaining the age of
superannuation as a Sanitary Inspector in 2015.
3. I have considered the strenuous submissions of the learned
Advocates for the respective sides.
4. The respondent had approached the Labour Court in Complaint
(ULP) No.8 of 1987 on the ground that though he was engaged as a
Sanitary Inspector on 10.7.1980, he was not granted permanency. He
filed Complaint (ULP) No.370 of 1986 before the Industrial Court for
seeing permanency, on 28.11.1986. Due to the interim orders of the
Industrial Court, he had continued in service after being reinstated
on 3.12.2086. Later on, the said relief was vacated and he was
terminated on 5.1.1987.
5. In his Complaint (ULP) No.8 of 1987 before the Labour Court,
the issue as to whether he is a workman or not being a Sanitary
Inspector, was not gone into. Nevertheless, the Labour Court
concluded that the petitioner has to recruit Sanitary Inspectors by
following the procedure of selection conducted by the Regional
Selection Board. Several candidates were selected and the
respondent was not selected. Considering this aspect, the Labour
Court concluded that an amount of Rs.10,000/- (as on 7.7.1992) was
sufficient compensation towards retrenchment compensation.
WP/3406/1997
6. The Industrial Court, by the impugned judgment, concluded
that in an interview, the respondent was selected though he was
temporarily engaged. He continued for about 5 years and was
disengaged. It was further concluded that though the candidates
have to be selected through the Regional Selection Board, some of
the candidates were appointed through agreements. It was observed
by the Industrial Court in paragraph No.7 (in verbatim) as under:-
" If we perused the findings given by the learned labour court
it appears that on going through the various appointment
letters on record it will be seen the Resp. has mentioned in it
that the appointment is subject to the selection of Regional
Selection Board. If it so, then the orig. Resp. ought to have
wait till the candidates comes from Regional Selection Board.
Secondly, the candidates who were appointed referred above
have not recruited through Regional Selection Board. There is
no documentary evidence on record to show that the orig.
Resp. had obtained permission from Govt. to appoint Sanitary
Inspector after forming Local interview committee and Resp.
has exempted from appointing a candidate through Regional
Selection Board. In such circumstance, there is clearly
violation of seniority list. It is also clear that Rajendra Ramdin
is junior to the orig. comp. It is also material to note that the
comp. was initially appointed after holding his interview. All
these aspect of evidence, if considered then the conclusion is
that, the labour Court has not considered the evidence, on
record properly. Due to non-consideration the findings of the
Labour Courts amounts perverse. Therefore, I have no
WP/3406/1997
alternative except to accept the submission of the Adv. for the
orig. complainant. i.e. the reinstatement follows continuity of
service & back-wages......"
7. I find that the findings of the Industrial Court cannot be
sustained for the reason that the non-selection of the respondent for
regular appointment as Sanitary Inspector, would not entitle him to a
relief of reinstatement on the ground of violation of seniority list.
When the Regional Selection Board was to select candidates for
regular appointments as Sanitary Inspectors, disengagement of
temporary Sanitary Inspectors and violation of seniority list would not
make the case of the respondent any better. It is not brought on
record that junior persons, who have also been temporarily engaged
as Sanitary Inspectors have been regularized in service without being
selected through any selection process. In fact, the similarly placed
colleagues of the respondent were selected through a selection
process and the respondent herein was not selected in that process.
8. The impugned judgment of the Industrial Court is, therefore,
perverse and erroneous since the view taken by the Industrial Court
cannot be sustained in matters of public employment. However,
since this Court did not stay the direction of reinstatement on
20.8.1997, the respondent was reinstated on 16.9.1997, he continued
upto his superannuation in 2015 and it is stated that he was also
given time bound promotions and all service benefits. In this
WP/3406/1997
backdrop, it would be harsh to conclude that the respondent was not
entitled to these benefits and more so, when he is now leading a
retired life.
9. In the light of the above, I deem it proper to deprive the
backwages granted by the Industrial Court to the respondent, since
the impugned judgment is unsustainable.
10.
In the light of the above, this petition is partly allowed. The
impugned judgment of the Industrial Court dated 22.6.1995 is set
aside. Revision (ULP) No.51 of 1992 filed by the petitioner stands
allowed and Revision (ULP) No.38 of 1992 filed by the respondent
stands dismissed. Nevertheless, the direction of the Labour Court
granting Rs.10,000/- compensation shall stand merged in the retiral
benefits paid to the respondent. Needless to state, the petitioner
shall be precluded from depriving the respondent of his retiral
benefits and there shall be no recovery of any sort from the
respondent, pursuant to the conclusions of this Court.
11. Rule is made partly absolute in the above terms.
( RAVINDRA V. GHUGE, J. )
...
akl/d
