Bombay High Court
The Gondia District Central ... vs Member Industrial Court, ... on 17 June, 2016
Bench: A.S. Chandurkar
WP-6686-15 1/8
IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY
NAGPUR BENCH, NAGPUR.
WRIT PETITION NO.6686 OF 2015
The Gondia District Central Co-operative Bank
Ltd. Gondia, a Co-operative Society duly
registered under provisions of Maharashtra
Co-operative Societies Act, Thr. Its Manager,
Gondia, Tahsil and Dist. Gondia. ... Petitioner
-vs-
1. Member Industrial Court, Bhandara
2. Lalita w/o Narayan Rangire,
Aged 39 years, R/o Gautam Nagar,
Wajpayee Ward, Gondia,
Tahsil and Dist. Gondia.
3. The Bhandara District Central Co-operative
Bank Staff Association, A recognised Union,
Thr. Its Secretary, having its office at
Ravendranath Tagor Ward, Bhandara,
Tahsil and Dist. Bhandara. ... Respondents
Shri A. M. Ghare, Advocate for petitioner.
Shri K. L. Dharmadhikari, Assistant Government Pleader for respondent
No.1.
Shri S. R. Bhongade, Advocate for respondent No.2.
CORAM : A.S.CHANDURKAR, J.
DATE : JUNE 17, 2016
Oral Judgment :
Heard. The challenge in the present petition is to the order
dated 19/10/2015 passed by the learned Member, Industrial Court,
WP-6686-15 2/8
Bhandara, whereby the application for grant of interim relief moved by the
respondent Nos.2 and 3 under provisions of Section 30(2) of the
Maharashtra Recognition of Trade Unions and Prevention of Unfair Labour
Practice Act, 1971 (for short, the said Act) has been allowed.
It is the case of the respondent Nos.2 and 3 that the respondent
No.2 was appointed as Peon on 01/08/2003 on a vacant and sanctioned
post. It is the further case that the respondent No.2 was regularly receiving
her wages which were increased from time to time. It is then pleaded that
about 25 daily wagers employed by the petitioner-Bank were regularised in
the service by passing a resolution to that effect. According to the
respondent No.2 as she was being denied the benefit of permanency, the
same resulted in committing of unfair labour practice. On this basis the
respondent Nos.2 and 3 filed complaint under Section 28 of the said Act
stating therein that such unfair labour practice was committed under Item
Nos.6 and 9 of Schedule-IV to the said Act. Alongwith the complaint, an
application for interim relief came to be moved in which an apprehension
was expressed that the petitioner may discontinue her services at any point
of time. The interim relief prayed was that the petitioner be directed not to
discontinue her services. On 18/08/2015, the Industrial Court considered
the prayer for interim relief and directed the petitioners to maintain status
quo in respect of service conditions of the respondent No.2 till filing reply.
The petitioner filed its reply in the proceedings and took the stand that the
WP-6686-15 3/8
respondent No.2 was allotted the work of cleaning utensils and drums along
with filling drinking water on contract basis. It was pleaded that she was
being paid by the Branch Manager for the work done. The relationship as
employer-employee was denied. It was further stated that contractual work
was allotted to a Society for the period from 01/02/2014 to 28/02/2015 and
thereafter from 01/06/2015 till 31/05/2016. It was then stated that the
petitioners refused to provide said contractual work to the respondent No.2
since 01/08/2015.
2. The parties were heard on the application for interim relief.
The Industrial Court came to the prima facie conclusion that the respondent
No.2 was doing the work as per the documents placed on record. It then
prima facie observed that the respondent No.2 was continuously working for
period of 240 days and on that basis it allowed the application for interim
relief by directing the petitioners to withdraw the oral order of termination
with further direction to provide work to the respondent No.2 which she was
performing prior to 01/08/2015. Being aggrieved, the present writ petition
has been filed.
3. Shri A. M. Ghare, the learned counsel for the petitioner
submitted that the Industrial Court was not justified in granting interim
relief to the respondent Nos.2 and 3 in the manner in which the same has
WP-6686-15 4/8
been granted. He submitted that the petitioner has come up with a specific
case that the respondent No.2 had not been appointed by the petitioner and
that contractual work which was allotted to the Society was only up to
31/05/2016. He submitted that since 01/08/2015 the petitioner had
refused to prove such contractual work to the complainant. According to
him, on the day on which the ad interim order was passed which was on
18/08/2015, the respondent No.2 was not doing any contractual work and
therefore by way of interim relief, the Industrial Court could not have
directed the petitioner to provide work to her. No order of appointment was
placed on record. According to the learned counsel, the decision relied upon
in the case of Saudi Arabian Air Lines vs. Ashok Margovind Panchal and
anr. 2003(1) MhLJ 745 did not apply to the facts of the present case and
same could not have been relied upon while granting interim relief. He
therefore submitted that by granting such interim relief, the petitioners were
compelled to allot the work to the respondent No.2 without she being legally
entitled for the same.
4. Shri S. R. Bhongade, the learned counsel for the respondent No.2
supported the impugned order. According to him, the Industrial Court was
justified in the facts of the present case in granting interim relief. He
submitted that while hearing the application for grant of interim relief on
18/08/2015, the petitioner had not given any say but had in fact sought an
WP-6686-15 5/8
adjournment for filing reply. He submitted that the stand taken in the
written statement that the respondent No.2 was not continued from
01/08/2015 was an afterthought as said fact could have been brought on
record when the application for interim relief was heard and the order dated
18/05/2015 was being passed. He then submitted that various documents
had been filed on record as per list at Exhibit-U-4 which indicated a prima
facie case in favour of the respondent No.2. According to him, the decision
in the case of Saudi Arabian Air Lines (supra) was applicable to the facts of
the present case and hence the interim order as passed did not call for any
interference.
Shri K. L. Dharmadhikari, the learned Assistant Government
Pleader appeared for the respondent No.1.
5. I have heard the respective counsel for the parties at length and I
have gone through the documents filed on record. In the complaint filed by
the respondent Nos.2 and 3, it has been pleaded that the respondent No.2
was engaged as Peon from 01/08/2003 and continued to discharge her
duties. It is then pleaded that the wages received by her were increased
from time to time. Resolutions passed by the General Body regularising
services of some daily wagers were referred to on the basis of which prayer
for regularisation had been made. The complaint was filed on 21/07/2015
on the apprehension that the services of respondent No.2 may be
WP-6686-15 6/8
discontinued and interim relief in that nature was sought. The order dated
18/08/2015 refers to the averments made in the application but no say was
given by the petitioner. On that basis the order of status quo came to be
passed.
6. The stand taken in the written statement is with regard to the
nature of work allotted to the respondent No.2. It is denied that any
appointment order was given though at the same time, It has been further
stated that the contract was allotted to a Society and that the respondent
No.2 was not given said work from 01/08/2015. Perusal of the impugned
order indicates that the documents filed on record were taken into
consideration. These documents included the entries in the pass-book
showing receipt of wages from 30/09/2014 and onwards. It was then
observed that the engagement of respondent No.2 from 01/08/2003 had not
been specifically denied by the petitioner in its reply. The annual reports of
the bank were also placed on record to indicate regularisation of 21
employees who were earlier working on daily wages basis. In paragraph 11
of the order, it is observed that the appointment order issued by the General
Manager did not indicate that the appointment was either on contract basis
or for specified working period. After considering this material on record
and the stand of the petitioners that they were not providing work to the
respondent No.2 from 01/08/2015, the interim relief came to be granted.
WP-6686-15 7/8
7. Considering the averments made in the complaint and those made in
the written statement and after considering the documents which are placed
on record by the respondent No.2, it cannot be said that the discretion
exercised by the Industrial Court under provisions of Section 30(2) of the
said Act calls for interference. The Industrial Court after considering all the
documents which were placed on record along with the stand of the
petitioner came to the prima facie conclusion that the respondent No.2 was
engaged at least from 30/04/2014 till 31/07/2015 as per the payment
vouchers. Considering the specific stand of the petitioners that they were
not providing work to the respondent No.2 from 01/08/2015, this
conclusion prima facie, appears to be reasonable.
8. The reliance placed on the decision in Saudi Arabian Air Lines
(supra) is justified in the facts of the case especially when the complainant
was filed on 21/07/2015. The direction is merely to provide work which the
respondent No.2 was doing prior to 01/08/2015. It therefore cannot be said
that the discretion has been wrongly exercised by the Industrial Court.
9. In view of aforesaid, I do no find that there is case made out to
interfere with the interim order passed by the Industrial Court. However, in
the facts of the case the proceedings before the Industrial Court are
expedited and complaint ULP No.123 of 2015 is directed to be decided by
WP-6686-15 8/8
the end of December 2016. It is clarified that the observations made in this
order are only for the purposes of deciding the interim application and the
complaint shall be decided on its own merits without being influenced by
these observations. The writ petition stands dismissed with no costs.
JUDGE
Asmita
