Bombay High Court
Aurangabad Zilla Sahakari Doodh ... vs Aurangabad Zilla Sahakari Doodh ... on 20 July, 2016
Bench: R.V. Ghuge
WP/4102/1995
1
IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE OF BOMBAY
BENCH AT AURANGABAD
WRIT PETITION NO. 4102 OF 1995
Aurangabad Zilla Sahakari Doodh
Utpadak Sangh Ltd., Aurangabad
Adjacent to Government Milk Scheme
through its Managing Director
Shri Ashok Sheshgiri Mahegaonkar
Age 45 years, Occ. Service
R/o as above. ..Petitioner
Versus
1. Aurangabad Zilla Sahakari Doodh
Utpadak Sangh Va Sanstha
Karmachari Sanghatana, 33,
Municipal Shopping Centre,
Aurangabad, Tq. and Dist. Aurangabad.
2. Industrial Court, Aurangabad.
3. (i) B.B.Bainade
Age major, Occ. Service
R/o Aurangabad.
(ii) W.B.Dalvi
Age major, Occ. Service
R/o Aurangabad.
(iii) D.M.Kadam,
Age major, Occ. Service
R/o Aurangabad.
(iv) Pradeep S. Attarde
Age major, Occ. Service
R/o Aurangabad.
(v) B.P.Borde
Age major, Occ. Service
R/o Aurangabad.
The respondent Nos. 3(i)
to 3(v) are formal parties. ..Respondents
...
::: Uploaded on - 21/07/2016 ::: Downloaded on - 30/07/2016 10:06:10 :::
WP/4102/1995
2
Advocate for Petitioner : Shri Prashant Deshmukh
Advocate for Respondent 1 : Shri T.K.Prabhakaran
Advocate for Respondent 2 : Deleted
Advocate for Respondent 3 : Dismissed.
...
CORAM : RAVINDRA V. GHUGE, J.
Dated: July 20, 2016
...
ORAL JUDGMENT :-
1. The petitioner is aggrieved by the judgment dated 12.12.1994,
delivered by the Industrial Court, Aurangabad by which, Complaint
(ULP) No.125 of 1990 has been allowed and the petitioner is directed
to reshuffle the position of promotion to the post of Milk Supervisor
and Cashier on the relevant dates when Shri B.B. Bainade, Shri
N.U.Dalvi, and Shri D.N.Kadam were given promotions as Milk
Supervisors and Shri P.S. Attarde and Shri B.P.Borde were given
promotion as Cashiers. The Industrial Court has also directed to
consider the eligibility of all employees in part I and II for promotion
to either of these posts and those who were found to be eligible to
be given promotion from the respective dates.
2. This petition was admitted by this Court on 7.9.2004. By
orders dated 18.3.1996 and 25.1.2000, the case was to be considered
for interim relief. However, interim relief was not granted to the
petitioner.
3. I have considered the submissions of the petitioner and the
WP/4102/1995
respondents.
4. The Industrial Court, while delivering the impugned judgment
has considered the Government Resolution dated 25.5.1985 and the
publication, by way of advertisement, dated 25.7.1989, 22.11.1989
and 2.3.1990. The promotions by which the respondents were
aggrieved, were granted on 17.2.1990. It is noteworthy that while
allowing the complaint, the Industrial Court has not directed either
to withdraw the promotion granted to any employee, nor has it
directed that a particular employee should be granted promotion to a
particular post.
5. It was noted by the Industrial Court that a committee for each
district was established under the Government Resolution. Three
persons, namely, Bharat Bainade, Narayan Dalvi and D.M.Kadam were
granted promotions and the other eligible employees were over-
looked. On the basis of evidence, the Industrial Court concluded that
though the petitioner resolved by Resolution No.3 dated 21.10.1992
to prepare separate Rules for promotion, no such Rules were in fact
framed. Upon perusing the seniority of the employees, the evidence
on record indicated that the three employees who were granted
promotion were junior to the other employees, who were
overlooked. It is in this backdrop that the Industrial Court directed
the petitioner to reshuffle the position of promotions so as to bring
WP/4102/1995
them in tune with the dates on which other employees would be
eligible and accordingly, consider the employees for grant of
promotions based on their eligibility and seniority.
6. I do not find that the impugned judgment could be termed as
being perverse or erroneous. This petition being devoid of merits is,
therefore, dismissed.
7.
Rule is discharged. No order as to costs.
( RAVINDRA V. GHUGE, J. )
...
akl/d
