Bombay High Court
Punjabrao Deshmukh Krishi ... vs Pre.Officer, Industrial Court, ... on 28 July, 2016
Bench: Z.A. Haq
Judgment 1 wp767.96.odt
IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY,
NAGPUR BENCH, NAGPUR.
WRIT PETITION NO. 767 OF 1996
Dr. Panjabrao Deshmukh Krishi
Vidyapeeth, Akola, through its
Registrar.
ig .... PETITIONER.
// VERSUS //
1. Presiding Officer, Industrial Court,
Amravati.
2. Madhukar Shriram Savle, Akola
3. Vinayak Sheshrao Kadale, Akola
Both C/o. Office of Director of
Students Welfare, Dr. P.D.K.V. Akola.
4. Rashid Khan Hasan Khan,
Automobile Workshop, Dr. P.D.K.V.
Krishinagar, Akola.
5. Shri Wasudev Shamrao Mahalle,
C.D.F., Wani-Rambhapur, Dist. Akola.
6. Manik Daulatrao Khobragade,
Automobile Workshop, Dr. P.D.K.V.,
Krishinagar, Akola.
7. Vishnu Motiram Kirnapure,
Automobile Workshop, Dr. P. D.K.V.,
Krishinagar, Akola.
8. Pandurang Ramchandra Date,
Central Demonstration Farm,
Wani-Rambhapur, Distt. Akola.
::: Uploaded on - 02/08/2016 ::: Downloaded on - 03/08/2016 00:08:03 :::
Judgment 2 wp767.96.odt
9. Vinayak Ajabrao Mhalsane (Dead)
By his LRs.
1) Smt. Ushatai Wd/o.Vinayakrao Mhalsane,
aged about 48 years, Occu.: Household.
2) Sachin S/o. Vinayakrao Mhalsane,
aged about 23 years, Occu.: Not known.
3) Ku. Maya D/o. Vinayakrao Mhalsane,
aged about 21 years, Occu.: Not known.
4) Ku. Swati D/o. Vinayakrao Mhalsane,
aged about 19 years,
All the above said persons are resident of
Village Chiparda, Tahsil Dariyapur,
District - Amravati.
10. Pralhad Ganpat Kawale,
Automobile Workship, Dr. P.D.K.V.,
Krishinagar, Akola.
11. Subhash Sampatsa Vinchurkar,
Central Demonstration Farm,
Wani-Rambhapur, Distt. Akola.
12. Keshav Narhari Mate,
Central Demonstration Farm,
Wani-Rambhapur, Distt. Akola.
13. Tukaram Natthuji Kalambekar,
Engineering Workshop, Dr. P.D.K.V.,
Krishinagar, Akola.
14. Ashok Harischandra Daterao,
Workshop, Central Research Station,
Dr. P.D.K.V., Krishinagar, Akola.
15. Vijay Yashavantrao Kategaonkar,
Engineering Workshop, Dr. P.D.K.V.,
Akola.
16. Shriram Pundlik Apturkar
Engineering Workshop, Dr. P.D.K.V.,
Akola.
::: Uploaded on - 02/08/2016 ::: Downloaded on - 03/08/2016 00:08:03 :::
Judgment 3 wp767.96.odt
17. Bhanudas Bapurao Joge,
Central Demonstration Farm,
Wani-Rambhapur, Distt. Akola.
.... RESPONDENTS
.
___________________________________________________________________
Shri A.R.Patil, Advocate for Petitioner (Employer)
Ms H.N. Prabhu, A.G.P. for Respondent No.1.
Ms R.D. Raskar, Advocate for Respondent Nos. 2, 12, 13 & 17 (Employees)
___________________________________________________________________
CORAM : Z.A.HAQ, J.
DATED : JULY 28, 2016.
ORAL JUDGMENT :
1. Heard learned advocates for the respective parties.
2. RULE. Rule made returnable forthwith.
3. The employer has challenged the order passed by the Industrial
Court allowing the complaint filed by the employees and directing the
employer to take steps to move government for approval for the post on
which the employees had been working and to absorb the employees in those
posts.
4. The employees filed complaints under Section 28 read with
Item 6 of Schedule IV of the Maharashtra Recognition of Trade Unions and
Judgment 4 wp767.96.odt
Prevention of Unfair Labour Practices Act, 1971 contending that though they
were working continuously for the period ranging between 10 to 15 years,
the employer had not regularized their services and they were not given
benefits of permanency. The employer opposed the complaints on various
grounds and mainly that the posts in which the employees had been working
were not sanctioned by the State Government.
The Industrial Court after conducting the trial, by the impugned
order recorded that the employees had been working with the employer for
more than 10 years continuously. The objection raised on behalf of the
employer that the State Government was necessary party to the proceedings
as its sanction for the posts is required, came to be rejected by the Industrial
Court relying on the judgment passed by Aurangabad Bench of this Court in
Writ Petition No.545 of 1991 and connected matters on 13th February, 1991.
The Industrial Court recorded in paragraph 6 of the impugned order that
similar objection was taken by the employer-University in the proceedings
filed by other similarly situated employees and the objection taken on behalf
of the employer was rejected throughout and the Petition for Special Leave to
Appeal No. 13760 of 1991 filed on behalf of of the employer was also
dismissed.
5. With the assistance of the learned advocate for the employees
and the learned A.G.P., I have examined the documents placed on record of
Judgment 5 wp767.96.odt
the petition. I find that the Industrial Court has considered the pleadings,
evidence on relevant aspects and the legal position properly. I do not find
any infirmity or illegality in the impugned order.
The petition is dismissed. In the circumstances, the parties to
bear their own costs.
ig JUDGE
RRaut..
Judgment 6 wp767.96.odt
C E R T I F I C A T E
I certify that this Judgment uploaded is a true and correct copy of
original signed Judgment.
Uploaded by : R.B. Raut, PS Uploaded on : 02.08.2016.
