Bombay High Court
State Of Maha & Ors vs Ramesh Rangnathrao Bhojane on 16 June, 2016
Bench: P.R. Bora
1
905 WP.1679.03.odt
THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY,
BENCH AT AURANGABAD.
APPELLATE SIDE JURISDICTION
WRIT PETITION NO. 1679 OF 2003
1. The State of Maharashtra,
Through the Chief Agriculture Officer,
Central Building, Latur.
2. The Divisional Agriculture Asstt.
Director, Central Building,
Latur (Now Divisional Jt. Director
of Agriculture, Latur Division, Latur)
ig ... PETITIONERS
(Ori. Respondents)
V E R S U S
Shri Ramesh Rangnathrao Bhojane,
Age 25 yrs, Occu. Service,
R/o Uti (B), Tq. Ausa, Dist. Latur. ... RESPONDENT
(Ori. Applicant/Petitioner)
...
Mr. U. H. Bhogale, AGP for the Petitioners.
None for the Respondent.
...
CORAM : P. R. BORA, J.
DATE : 16th June, 2016.
ORAL JUDGMENT:
. The order passed by the Member Industrial Court,
Solapur on 20th April, 2000 in Complaint (ULP) No.289 of 1991 is
905 WP.1679.03.odt
questioned in the present petition by the Petitioner. Respondent No.1
had filed the aforesaid complaint under Items 5, 6, 9 and 10 of
Schedule - IV of the M.R.T.U. & P.U.L.P. Act alleging that though he
is in continuous service of the Respondents i.e. present Petitioners
and had worked for more than 240 days in the preceding year, he has
not been extended benefit of permanency. It was also the contention
of the present Respondent that similarly placed other employees
working as drivers were getting the wages as per the scale, but the
Complainant was deprived of the pay in the scale.
2 The complaint so filed by Respondent No.1 was contested
by the present Petitioner. However, on assessment of the oral and
documentary evidence brought before it, the learned Member,
Industrial Court, Solapur partly allowed the said complaint directing
the Respondents therein i.e. present Petitioners to continue the
Complainant i.e. Respondent No.1 in the regular pay scale till the
availability of regular candidate from the selection board.
3 After having perused the entire text of the judgment
delivered by the learned Industrial Court in light of the objections
raised by the Petitioners in the present petition, it does not appear to
905 WP.1679.03.odt
me that any error is committed by the learned Tribunal in partly
allowing the complaint vide the impugned order. Since it was the
contention of the present Petitioners that Respondent - employee
was not regularly selected candidate and that no procedure as
prescribed in law was followed before making his appointment, the
learned Industrial Court has directed to continue the services of the
Respondent - employee till the regularly selected candidate from the
selection board resumes the duties. The order so passed by the
Industrial Court cannot be said to have caused any prejudice to the
Petitioners for the reason that no permanent right is created in favour
of the Respondent - employee. The writ petition is devoid of any
substance and deserves to be dismissed. It is accordingly dismissed
without any order as to the costs. Rule discharged.
[ P. R. BORA, J. ]
ndm
