Bombay High Court
Shri Ravindra Shankarrao ... vs The Commissioner Amravati ... on 6 June, 2016
Bench: Z.A. Haq
Judgment 1 wp5539.14.odt
IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY,
NAGPUR BENCH, NAGPUR.
WRIT PETITION NO. 5539 OF 2014
1. Shri Ravindra Shankarrao Chandole,
Age 47, Occu.: Service, Add : C/o.
Local Body Tax Department, Municipal
Corporation, Rajkamal Square, Amravati.
2. Shri Mo. Shakil Ab. Kadir, Age : 46 years,
Occu.: Service, Add: C/o. Zone No.3 (East
Zone), Tax Department, Municipal
Corporation, Hamalpura, Amravati.
3. Shri Narendra Bhouraoji Devrankar,
Age : 43, Occu.: Service, Add: C/o.
Zone No.3 (East Zone), Tax Department,
Municipal Corporation, Hamalpura,
Amravati.
4. Shri Rajesh Nanasaheb Tayade, Age : 42
yrs., Occu.: Service, Add: C/o. Water
Supply Department, Zone No.2 (Central
Zone) Municipal Corporation, Hamalpura,
Amravati.
5. Shri Ajay Subhashrao Londe,
Age : 41, Occu.: Service, Add: C/o.
Zone No.2 (Central Zone), Tax Department,
Municipal Corporation, Rajkamal Square,
Amravati.
6. Shri Mukesh Dinkarrao Kharkar,
Age : 36, Occu.: Service, Add: C/o.
Zone No.5 (West Zone), Tax Department,
Municipal Corporation, A.M.C. School No.1,
Bhaji Bazar, Amravati.
::: Uploaded on - 10/06/2016 ::: Downloaded on - 30/07/2016 04:27:14 :::
Judgment 2 wp5539.14.odt
7. Shri Sanjay Vishwasrao Harne,
Age : 47, Occu.: Service, Add: C/o.
Zone No.4 (South Zone), Tax Department,
Municipal Corporation, Badnera,
Amravati.
8. Shri Naiyer Hussain Abdul Hussain,
Age : 45 yrs., Occu.: Service, Add: C/o.
Education Department, Municipal
Corporation, Near Manibai High School,
Ambapeth, Amravati.
9. Shri Shrikrishna Vasantrao Pardhi,
Age : 43, Occu.: Service, Add: C/o.
Sanitation Department, Municipal
Corporation, Rajkamal Square,
Amravati.
10. Shri Pravin Nagorao Ingole,
Age : 42, Occu.: Service, Add: C/o.
Zone No.1 (North Zone), Municipal
Corporation, Krushna Nagar,
Rampuri Camp, Amravati.
11. Shri Chandrakant Ashok Deshmukh,
Age : 39, Occu.: Service, Add: C/o.
Zone No.1 (North Zone), Tax Department,
Municipal Corporation, Krushna Nagar,
Rampuri Camp, Amravati.
12. Shri Chandrashekhar Dnyaneshwar Takpithe,
Age : 38, Occu.: Service, Add: C/o.
Prosecution Department, Municipal
Corporation, Rajkamal Square,
Amravati.
13. Shri Uday Manoharrao Deshmukh,
Age : 36, Occu.: Service, Add: C/o.
General Administration Department,
Municipal Corporation, Rajkamal Square,
Amravati.
14. Smt. Shamimbano Naiem Khan,
Age : 50 yrs., Occu.: Service, Add: C/o.
Health Department, Municipal Corporation,
Rajkamal Square, Amravati.
::: Uploaded on - 10/06/2016 ::: Downloaded on - 30/07/2016 04:27:14 :::
Judgment 3 wp5539.14.odt
15. Ku. Rekha Ranjitsingh Bayas,
Age : 38 yrs., Occu.: Service, Add: C/o.
Zone No.5 (West Zone), Municipal
Corporation, A.M.C. School No.1,
Bhaji Bazar, Amravati.
16. Shri Vinod Shriram Nichat,
Age : 49 yrs., Occu.: Service, Add: C/o.
General Administration Department,
Municipal Corporation, Rajkamal Square,
Amravati.
17.
Shri Sunil Wamanrao Wasu,
Age : 49 yrs., Occu.: Service, Add: C/o.
Zone No.1 (North Zone), Tax Department,
Municipal Corporation, Rajkamal Square,
Amravati.
18. Shri Kadir Shah Ebrahim Kha,
Age : 53 yrs., Occu.: Service, Add: C/o.
Zone No.2 (Central Zone), Tax Department,
Municipal Corporation, Rajkamal Square,
Amravati.
19. Shri Sanjay Shrirampant Darvekar,
Age : 45 yrs., Occu.: Service, Add: C/o.
Town Planning Department,
Municipal Corporation, Rajkamal Square,
Amravati.
20. Shri Rajendra Narayansingh Chavhan,
Age : 51 yrs., Occu.: Service, Add: C/o.
Town Planning Department,
Municipal Corporation, Rajkamal Square,
Amravati.
21. Smt. Ranjana Prakash Joshi,
Age : 52 yrs., Add: C/o. Municipal Secretary
Department, Municipal Corporation,
Rajkamal Square, Amravati.
.... PETITIONERS.
// VERSUS //
::: Uploaded on - 10/06/2016 ::: Downloaded on - 30/07/2016 04:27:14 :::
Judgment 4 wp5539.14.odt
1) The Commissioner, Amravati Municipal
Corporation, Amravati.
2) Member, Industrial Court, Amravati.
3) Akash Prakashrao Tirathkar, age 34 years,
Occu.: Service, Add : Electrical Department,
Municipal Corporation, Rajkamal Square,
Amravati.
4) Shri Shailesh Krushnarao Vaidya, Age : 32
Yrs., Occu.: Service, Add: Local Body Tax
Department, Municipal Corporation,
Rajkamal Square, Amravati.
5) Swapnil Nandkumar Jaswante, Age : 32
years, Occu.: Service, Add : Account Section,
Municipal Corporation, Rajkamal Square,
Amravati.
6) Shri Bhushan Subhash Pusatkar, Age : 32
years, Occu.: Service, Add : Public Relation
Department, Municipal Corporation,
Rajkamal Square, Amravati.
7) Anand Mohan Kashikar, Age : 30 years,
Occu.: Service, Add : Market and Licence
Department, A.M.C., Jac & Jill High School,
Rajapeth, Amravati.
8) Jitendra Narendra Sriwastav, Age : 30 Yrs.
Occu.: Service, Zone No.4 (South Zone), Tax
Department, Municipal Corporation, Badnera
Amravati.
9) Gulshan Shivdas Mirani, Age : 32 years,
Occu.: Service, Add : Account Section,
Municipal Corporation, Rajkamal Square,
Amravati.
10) Gajendra Uttamrao Harshe, Age : 32 years,
Occu.: Service, Add : Zone No.2 (Central
Zone), Tax Department, Municipal Corporation,
Rajkamal Square, Amravati.
::: Uploaded on - 10/06/2016 ::: Downloaded on - 30/07/2016 04:27:14 :::
Judgment 5 wp5539.14.odt
.... RESPONDENTS
.
___________________________________________________________________
Shri S.W.Sambre, Advocate for the Petitioner.
Shri P.A. Kadu, Advocate for Respondent Nos. 3 to 10.
Shri K.R.Lule, A.G.P. for Respondent No. 2.
Shri P.A.Masram, Advocate h/f. Shri S.S.Shingne,Adv. for Resp.No.1.
___________________________________________________________________
CORAM : Z.A.HAQ, J.
DATED : JUNE 06, 2016.
ORAL JUDGMENT :
Shri P.A. Masram, advocate holding for Shri S.S. Shingne,
advocate for the respondent No.1 requests for adjournment on the ground
that Shri S.S. Shingne, advocate, who represents respondent No.1, is not
available today. However, considering the matter and the fact that the
respondent No.1 is a formal party as far as the present petition is concerned,
the request for adjournment is rejected.
2. Heard Shri S.W.Sambre, advocate for the petitioner, Shri P.A.
Kadu, advocate for the respondent Nos. 3 to 10 and Shri K.R. Lule, A.G.P. for
the respondent No.2.
3. RULE. Rule made returnable forthwith.
4. The respondent Nos. 3 to 10 have filed complaint under Section
28 read with Section 5 and Item nos. 5 and 9 of Schedule IV of the
Judgment 6 wp5539.14.odt
Maharashtra Recognition of Trade Unions and Prevention of Unfair Labour
Practices Act, 1971 contending that the order issued by the respondent No.1
Municipal Corporation on 25th October, 2013 granting benefit of seniority
and pay to the present petitioners is illegal. The respondent Nos. 3 to 10
filed an application before the Industrial Court praying for interim relief. The
Industrial Court by the impugned order has stayed the operation and
execution of the order issued by the respondent No.1-Municipal Corporation
on 25th October, 2013 till decision of the complaint, and the petitioners
being aggrieved by the interim order passed by the Industrial Court, have
filed this writ petition.
By the order dated 13th October, 2014, this Court directed
issuance of notice to the respondents and has also directed the parties to
maintain status-quo.
5. Shri P.A. Kadu, learned advocate for the respondent Nos. 3 to
10 has submitted that if the interim order passed by the Industrial Court on
22nd September, 2014 is set aside, the petitioners would be treated as senior
to the respondent Nos. 3 to 10 and further the petitioners would be receiving
higher salary though they are not entitled for it.
6. On query, the learned advocates for the petitioners as well as
respondent Nos. 3 to 10 have stated that immediately there are no chances
Judgment 7 wp5539.14.odt
of any promotions being made from the cadre in which the petitioners as
well as the respondent Nos. 3 to 10 are working. In view of this fact,
apprehension of the respondent Nos. 3 to 10 that the petitioners would be
treated as senior to the respondent Nos. 3 to 10 is ill-founded. To dispel the
apprehension of the respondent Nos. 3 to 10 it is directed that the
respondent No.1-Municipal Corporation shall not give promotion to any of
the petitioner or any of the respondent Nos. 3 to 10 till decision of the
complaint pending before the Industrial Court, without seeking prior
permission from the Industrial Court.
7. As far as the submission made on behalf of the respondent Nos.
3 to 10 that the petitioners would be paid higher / additional amount though
they are not entitled for it, cannot be considered at this stage, as according to
me, the respondent Nos. 3 to 10 cannot be said to be prejudiced if the
respondent No.1-Municipal Corporation, which is the employer, finds the
petitioners entitled for higher / additional pay.
To safeguard the interests of the respondent No.1-Municipal
Corporation, it is directed that if the higher/ additional pay, is given to the
petitioners as per the order issued by the respondent No.1-Municipal
Corporation on 25th October, 2013, it shall be paid only after the petitioners
file undertaking before the Industrial Court that in case the complaint filed
by the respondent Nos. 3 to 10 is allowed the petitioners shall repay the
additional amount received by them within two months.
Judgment 8 wp5539.14.odt
The petition is disposed in the above terms. In the
circumstances, the parties to bear their own costs.
JUDGE
RRaut..
