Bombay High Court
Sopan S/O Tryambakrao Avchar vs The Registrar, Maharashtra ... on 21 July, 2016
Bench: A.S. Chandurkar
wp1430.15n1431.15.odt 1/6
IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY
NAGPUR BENCH : NAGPUR.
WRIT PETITION NO. 1430 OF 2015
PETITIONER: Sopan S/o Tryambakrao Avchar,
Aged about 35 years, Occ: Service,
R/o Kunal Xerox Center, Mahatma
Gandhi Nagar, Seminary Hills,
Nagpur.
-VERSUS-
RESPONDENTS: 1. The Registrar, Maharashtra Animal
and Fisheries Science University,
Telankhedi, Hanuman Mandir, Futala
ig Road, Nagpur.
2. The Vice Chancellor, Maharashtra
Animal and Fisheries Science
University, Telankhedi, Hanuman
Mandir, Futala Road, Nagpur.
3. State of Maharashtra, Through its
Secretary, Department of Agriculture,
Animal Husbandry, Diary
Development and Fisheries,
Mantralaya - Extension, Mumbai.
WITH
WRIT PETITION NO. 1431 OF 2015
PETITIONER: Mangala Shankarao Dhenge (now
Mangala Syam Dhenge) Aged about
43 years, Occ: Service, R/o Plot
No.86, Rajabaksha, Near Hanuman
Temple, Nagpur.
-VERSUS-
RESPONDENTS: 1. The Registrar, Maharashtra Animal
and Fisheries Science University,
Telankhedi, Hanuman Mandir, Futala
Road, Nagpur.
::: Uploaded on - 28/07/2016 ::: Downloaded on - 30/07/2016 10:11:26 :::
wp1430.15n1431.15.odt 2/6
2. The Vice Chancellor, Maharashtra
Animal and Fisheries Science
University, Telankhedi, Hanuman
Mandir, Futala Road, Nagpur.
3. State of Maharashtra, Through its
Secretary, Department of Agriculture,
Animal Husbandry, Diary
Development and Fisheries,
Mantralaya - Extension, Mumbai.
Shri Rohit Joshi, Advocate for the petitioner.
Mrs. U. A. Patil, Advocate for the respondent Nos.1 & 2.
Ms. Tajwar Khan, Asst. Government Pleader for respondent no.3.
ig
CORAM: A.S. CHANDURKAR, J.
DATED: 21
JULY, 2016.
st
ORAL JUDGMENT :
1. Since identical orders are challenged in these writ
petitions, the same are heard finally by issuing Rule and making
the same returnable forthwith.
2. The petitioner in each writ petition is the complainant
before the Industrial Court who has filed a complaint under
Section 28 of the Maharashtra Recognition of Trade Union and
Prevention of Unfair Labour Practice Act, 1971 under Items 5, 6, 9
and 10 of Schedule IV to the said Act. In the complaint, a prayer is
made seeking benefit of regularization of services with benefit of
seniority and permanency. During the pendency of the complaint,
an application for amending the pleadings was moved by the
complainants. The amendment sought pertained to the order of
wp1430.15n1431.15.odt 3/6
regularization that was passed in the case of a similarly situated
employee. Reference was made to the orders passed in Writ
Petition No.362/1991. Ancillary prayer seeking payment of arrears
of salary was also made. The application for amendment was
opposed by the respondent Nos.1 and 2. By the impugned order,
the learned Member of the Industrial Court partly allowed the
application for amendment and observed that the judgment of this
Court could be referred to while arguing the complaint. Being
aggrieved by the rejection of that part of the amendment, the
complainants have filed these writ petitions.
3. Shri Rohit Joshi, the learned Counsel for the
petitioners submitted that in Writ Petition No.362/1991 a
direction was issued by this Court to consider the claim of the
petitioner therein for regularization. That was the only order
passed in the said writ petition. Pursuant thereto the respondent
Nos.1 and 2 had regularized the services of the petitioner therein
and these facts sought to be brought on record. A further pleading
that 65 posts of Junior Clerk were still vacant was also sought to
be made. Ancillary prayers seeking mandatory reliefs were also
made. He, therefore, submitted that mere reference to the
judgment in Writ Petition No.362/1991 would not suffice and the
subsequent events that had occurred pursuant to the aforesaid
wp1430.15n1431.15.odt 4/6
judgment were required to be pleaded.
4. Mrs. U. A. Patil, the learned Counsel for the
respondent Nos.1 and 2 supported the impugned order. She
submitted that the Industrial Court rightly disallowed the
amendment relating to the order passed by this Court. She
submitted that the petitioners were not entitled for any of the
reliefs claimed by them in the amendment application.
Ms. Tajwar Khan, the learned Asstt. Government
Pleader appeared for the respondent no.3.
5. The amendment as sought by the petitioners was
based on the events that occurred as a consequence of the orders
passed in Writ Petition No.362/1991. In said writ petition, a
direction to consider the claim of the petitioner therein had been
issued. Hence, mere reference to the order passed by this Court
would not serve any purpose. The subsequent events pursuant to
the aforesaid order were sought to be placed on record so as to
support the prayers made in the complaint. The said pleadings
pertain to steps taken by the respondent nos.1 and 2 themselves. It
is a different matter that according to the respondent Nos.1 and 2
the petitioners are not entitled for similar relief. The same, would
be an aspect to be considered on merits and cannot be a ground to
deny the amendment. The prayers sought to be amended are also
wp1430.15n1431.15.odt 5/6
of a consequential nature. The same can be opposed by the
respondents by amending their pleadings. The Industrial Court,
therefore, was not justified in refusing the amendment in paras
17A to 17C and 17E. Such refusal would cause prejudice to the
case of the petitioners. Hence, a case for interference has been
made out.
6. In view of aforesaid, the following order is passed:
(1) The order passed by the Industrial Court on 5-3-2015
in both the writ petitions. refusing to grant the application for
amendment in its entirety in both the complaints is set aside.
(2) The application for amendment in both the complaints
stand allowed. It would be open for the respondents to
consequentially amend their pleadings. Needless to observe that
the Industrial Court shall decide the complaints on their own merit
and in accordance with law.
(3) Rule is made absolute in aforesaid terms. No costs.
JUDGE
//MULEY//
wp1430.15n1431.15.odt 6/6
CERTIFICATE
"I certify that this Judgment uploaded is a true and
correct copy of original signed Judgment."
Uploaded by : Sanjay B. Muley, Uploaded on : 28-07-2016
Personal Assistant.
