Bombay High Court
State Of Mah. Thru. Secty. & 3 Ors vs Suresh Gulabrao Bakre on 16 June, 2016
Bench: Z.A. Haq
Judgment 1 wp2400.08.odt
IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY,
NAGPUR BENCH, NAGPUR.
WRIT PETITION NO. 2400 OF 2008
1. The State of Maharashtra,
Through its Secretary,
To the Government of Maharashtra,
In the Department of Public Works,
Mantralaya, Mumbai - 32.
2. The Superintending Engineer,
P.W. Circle, Commissioner
Building, Civil Lines, Nagpur.
3. The Executive Engineer,
Public Works Division,
Wardha.
4. The Sub-Divisional Engineer,
Public Works Sub-Division No.2,
Wardha.
.... PETITIONERS.
// VERSUS //
Suresh Gulabrao Bakre,
Aged about 37 years,
Occ. Service, R/o. Gajanan Nagar,
Opp. Panchavati Mandir,
Ward No.2, Wardha.
.... RESPONDENT
.
___________________________________________________________________
Shri H.R. Dhumale, A.G.P. for Petitioners/Employer.
None for the Respondent/ Employee.
___________________________________________________________________
CORAM : Z.A.HAQ, J.
DATED : JUNE 16, 2016.
Judgment 2 wp2400.08.odt
ORAL JUDGMENT :
1. Heard learned A.G.P. for the Petitioners / Employer. None
appears for the Respondent-Employee.
2. The employer has challenged the order passed by the Industrial
Court allowing the complaint filed by the employee under Section 28 r/w.
Items 5, 6 and 9 of Schedule IV of the Maharashtra Recognition of Trade
Unions and Prevention of Unfair Labour Practices Act, 1971.
3. The employee had filed complaint contending that he was
appointed by the employer on 25th September, 1984 on daily wages as
Oilman and subsequently he was continuously working as Driver, however,
he was paid salary of the post of Oilman. The employee made a grievance
that while bringing him on C.R.T.E. w.e.f. 25 th September, 1989 instead of
putting him in the category of Driver he was wrongly put in the category of
conductor.
4. The employer opposed the claim of the employee.
5. The Industrial Court conducted the trial and after considering
the evidence on the record, concluded that the employee established that he
was holding valid driving licence and was continuously working as driver
Judgment 3 wp2400.08.odt
since 1992 with the petitioners, and as per Government Resolution dated 29 th
September, 2003, the employee was entitled to be absorbed in the post of
driver. The argument made on behalf of the employer that the name of the
employee was not sponsored for the post of Driver by the Employment
Exchange or Service Selection Board, has also been considered by the
Industrial Court and it is repelled by recording that the entry of the
respondent - employee in service is not illegal. After considering the
evidence on record which establishes that the entry of the employee in
service was not unlawful and that the employer extracted work of driver
from the employee for continuous period of about eight years, and
considering the effect of Government Resolution dated 29th September,
2003, the Industrial Court has allowed the complaint filed by the respondent
- employee.
6. I find that the conclusions of the Industrial Court are based on
proper appreciation of evidence on record and there is neither any illegality
nor perversity in the impugned order which necessitates interference by this
Court in the extraordinary jurisdiction. I see no reason to interfere with the
impugned order.
7. The petition is dismissed. In the circumstances, the parties to
bear their own costs.
Judgment 4 wp2400.08.odt
8. The amount deposited by the petitioner before this Court as per
the order passed on 18th June, 2008 be given to the respondent employee
with interest, if any. The amount of Rs.17,961/- deposited by the employer
shall be adjusted while working out the entitlement of the employee as per
the order passed by the Industrial Court.
ig JUDGE
RRaut..
