Bombay High Court
The Suptd.Engineer Nagpur ... vs Govinda Patiram Chunole on 16 June, 2016
Bench: A.S. Chandurkar
wp6294.05.odt 1/6
IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY
NAGPUR BENCH : NAGPUR.
WRIT PETITION NO.6294 OF 2005
PETITIONERS: 1. The Superintending Engineer, Nagpur
Irrigation Circle, Nagpur.
2. The Executive Engineer, Nagpur
Irrigation Division, Nagpur.
3. The Sub Divisional Engineer, Lift
Irrigation, Sub-Division, Bhandara.
4. Administrator/Superintending
Engineer, Command Area,
Development Authority, Vainganga
Nagar, Nagpur.
ig 5. The Project Officer/Executive
Engineer, Soil and Water
Management, Pilot Project, Nagpur.
6. The Sub Divisional Officer, Pench
irrigation Management, Sub-Division,
Bhandara.
-VERSUS-
RESPONDENT: Govinda S/ Patiram Chunole through
Lrs:
i. Smt. Shobha wd/o Govinda Chunole,
Aged about 46 years, R/o Silli, Tq. &
Distt. Bhandara.
ii. Sau. Ashwini w/o Digambar Shende,
alias Ashwini d/o govinda Chunole,
Age about 27 years, Takiya Ward
Bhandara, Tah. & Distt. Bhandara,
Pin Code 441 904.
iii Kishor S/o Govind Chunole, Aged
about 24 years, R/o Silli, Tq. & Distt.
Bhandara.
iv Ku. Yogita d/o Govinda Chunole,
Aged about 21 years, R/o Silli, Tq. &
Distt. Bhandara.
Shri K. L. Dharmadhikari, Asstt. Government Pleader for the petitioners.
::: Uploaded on - 21/06/2016 ::: Downloaded on - 30/07/2016 05:35:35 :::
wp6294.05.odt 2/6
Shri A. R. Patil Advocate for the respondent.
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
CORAM: A.S. CHANDURKAR, J.
DATED: 16
th JUNE, 2016.
ORAL JUDGMENT :
1. The challenge in the present writ petition is to the
judgment of the Industrial Court dated 20-12-2004 by which the
complaint filed by the original respondent under provisions of
Items 6 and 9 of Schedule IV to the Maharashtra Recognition of
Trade Union and Prevention of Unfair Labour Practices Act, 1971
has been partly allowed. The original respondent was directed to
be brought on CRTE as Amin/Canal Inspector/Clerk from
29/6/1986 and difference of wages were directed to be paid from
the date of the judgment.
2. It was the case of the original respondent that since
29-6-1981 he was rendering services as Amin on daily wages. He
was thereafter recruited as a semi skilled workman from 27-1-
1987 and he started working on the lower post under protest. It
was his further case that after completion of period of five years on
the post of Amin on 29-6-1986, he was entitled to be taken on
CRTE as was done in regard to two similarly situated employees.
After making representations, the original respondent filed a
complaint on 29-9-1998. The petitioners have filed their written
wp6294.05.odt 3/6
statement and opposed the claim made in the complaint. It was
their case that the original respondent was working as a Mokadam.
His subsequent recruitment was denied. It was further pleaded
that he was not entitled for the reliefs as prayed. Before the
Industrial Court, the original respondent examined below Exhibit-
25 while the petitioners examined six witnesses. By the impugned
judgment, the complaint has been partly allowed directing the
services of the original respondent to be brought on CRTE from
29-6-1986.
3. Shri K. L. Dharmadhikari, the learned Assistant
Government Pleader for the petitioners submitted that the
Industrial Court was not justified in partly allowing the complaint.
According to him, the original respondent was not duly qualified
or eligible and therefore, he could not have been directed to be
brought on CRTE as prayed. According to him, the Industrial Court
without considering the relevant aspects of the mater granted
relief to the original respondent on the post on which he was
working on daily wages. He referred to the Recruitment Rules of
the year 1993 and submitted that the original respondent was not
entitled for any relief whatsoever.
4. Shri A. R. Patil, the learned Counsel for the legal
representatives of the original respondent who has since expired
wp6294.05.odt 4/6
supported the impugned judgment. According to him, the
Industrial Court after considering the entire evidence and after
recording a finding that the original respondent was discharging
duties on the post of Amin from the year 1981 was justified in
granting relief to the original respondent. According to him, the
certificates at Exhibits 28 and 29 dated 1/4/1984 and 3/2/1986
proved the fact that from 1/7/1981, the original respondent was
working as Amin. He also submitted that the witness examined by
the petitioners had admitted that two other employees namely Shri
Kalambe and Shri Thakre who were similarly situated daily wagers
had been regularized on the post of Amin. He then submitted that
this Court in Writ Petition No.6296/2005 (State of Maharashtra
and others V. Laxminarayan) considering a similar challenge did
not accept the same. It was, therefore, submitted that no
interference was called for in the order passed by the Industrial
Court.
4. I have heard the respective Counsel for the partiess
and I have given due consideration to their respective submissions.
The material on record of the Industrial Court indicates that an
experience certificate dated 1/4/1984 (Exhibit-28) was issued to
the original respondent stating that he had been working as Amin
from 1/7/1981. This fact was reiterated in the subsequent
wp6294.05.odt 5/6
certificate at Exhibit-29 dated 3/2/1986. The original respondent
was not cross-examined on this vital aspect. It has then been found
that with regard to two similarly situated daily wage employees
namely Shri Kalambe and Shri Thakre, they had been brought on
CRTE on the post of Amin. The witnesses examined by the
petitioners admitted in their cross-examination that though the
original respondent had signed various oficial documents as Amin,
no action was taken against him in that regard. The findings,
therefore, which are recorded by the Industrial Court with regard
to the engagment of the original respondent as Amin from 1-7-
1981 is based on evidence available on record.
5. In so far as the submission that the recruitment of the
original respondent was not as per the Rules framed in the year
1993, it is to be noted that these Rules have come into force after
the engagement of the original respondent. Moreover, a specific
defence in that regard does not appear to have been taken in the
written statement filed by the petitioners before the Industrial
Court. The conversion of the two daily wage employees referred
to herein above was sought to be justified on the ground that they
were found eligible as per Kalelkar Award. As to how the original
respondent was not so entitled for similar treatment has not been
demonstrated.
wp6294.05.odt 6/6
Even otherwise, a somewhat identical challenge was
considered in Writ Petition No.6296/2005 and the same was
turned down by rejecting the writ petition on 24/7/2006. Further
the monetary relief granted to the original respondent as regards
difference in wages is granted only from the date of order of the
Industrial Court dated 28/12/2004.
6. In view of aforesaid, I do not find that the Industrial
Court committed any error by passing the impugned judgment. In
the absence of any jurisdictional error, the writ petition stands
dismissed with no order as to costs.
As a consequence of dismissal of the writ petition, the
legal heirs of the original respondent would be entitled to receive
the monetary benefits pursuant to the order of the Industrial
Court.
JUDGE
//MULEY//
