Bombay High Court
Devidas Shankarrao Sambhare vs The Honable Member, Industrail ... on 20 June, 2016
Bench: A.S. Chandurkar
wp1632 & 3460-15
1
IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY,
NAGPUR BENCH, NAGPUR
WRIT PETITION NO.1632 OF 2015
1. Superintending Engineer,
Hydrology Project Circle ( Collection),
Nashik.
2. The Executive Engineer,
Hydrology Project, Division,
Nagpur.
3. The Assistant Engineer Grade-I,
Hydrology Project, Sub Division,
Wardha. ... ... ... Petitioners.
..Versus..
Devidas Shankarrao Sambhare,
r/o Durgwada, Tq. Ashti,
District Amravati. ... ... ... Respondent.
AND
WRIT PETITION NO.3460 OF 2015
Devidas Shankarrao Sambhare,
Aged about 43 years,
(Cannel Inspector), Navegaon Railway,
Post Navegaon Railway,
(Irrigation Department, Navegaon Railway)
Tq. Chamorshi, District Gadchiroli. ... ... Petitioner.
..Versus..
1. The Hon'ble Member,
Industrial Court, Amravati.
.....2/-
::: Uploaded on - 22/06/2016 ::: Downloaded on - 30/07/2016 06:02:37 :::
wp1632 & 3460-15
2
2. Superintending Engineer,
Hydrology Project Circle ( Collection),
Nashik.
3. The Executive Engineer,
Hydrology Project, Division,
Nagpur.
4. The Assistant Engineer Grade-I,
Hydrology Project, Sub Division,
Wardha. ... ... ... Respondents.
.......................................................................................................................................................
Mr. Y.P. Kaslikar, Adv. for petitioner in WP No.3460/15 and for respondent in WP No. 1632/15.
Ms. Tajwar Khan, AGP for State.
.......................................................................................................................................................
CORAM : A.S. CHANDURKAR,
J.
DATED : 20 th
JUNE,
2016.
ORAL JUDGMENT
Since both these petitions raise challenge to the judgment of the
Industrial Court in Complaint ULP No.33/2006 dated 17.7.2014, they are
heard together and have been decided by this common judgment.
Rule. Rule made returnable forthwith and heard finally.
The petitioner in W.P. No.3460/2015 came up with a case that
he was working on daily wages with the Water Resources Department since
1.6.1990. A notice of termination came to be issued to him on 18.6.1993.
After initially filing the proceedings before the Industrial Court, the
proceedings were made over to Labour Court. In the said proceedings, an
.....3/-
wp1632 & 3460-15
order of interim relief by which the petitioner continued in employment was
passed in the year 1995. This complaint came to be decided on 23.7.2004.
Though the Labour Court recorded a finding in para 8 of his judgment that
the petitioner had failed to show any unfair labour practice, the complaint
was allowed. As the petitioner was in service for more than five years, the
respondents were directed to continue the services of the petitioner on the
same terms and conditions by giving benefits as per Circular dated
24.4.2001. This order of the Labour Court, however, came to be set aside by
the Industrial Court in Revision Application preferred by the respondents by
order dated 5.9.2009. During pendency of the revision application, the
petitioner filed a separate complaint before the Industrial Court seeking
regularization of his services in terms of the Kalelkar Award. By the
impugned judgment dated 17th July, 2014 this complaint has been allowed
and the services of the petitioner have been directed to be regularised in
terms of Circular dated 24.4.2001.
The petitioner being aggrieved has filed W.P. No.3460/2015
praying therein that he was entitled for the benefits of regularization from
the date he completed five years service and not from the date of Circular
issued on 24.4.2001. The Water Resources Department has challenged the
order of Industrial Court in its entirety.
.....4/-
wp1632 & 3460-15
Having heard respective counsel it transpires that the order
passed by the Industrial Court on 5.9.2009 in Revision Application
No.18/2005 was not placed before the Industrial Court when it decided the
present proceedings. This order according to Ms. Khan, the leaned Assistant
Government Pleader, was a notable piece of evidence in view of the fact that
the earlier order passed by the Labour Court granting reinstatement in favour
of the petitioner had been set aside. According to Mr. Kaslikar, the learned
counsel for the petitioner, the petitioner was not represented in these
proceedings and therefore he was not aware about its adjudication. Be that
as it may, the adjudication in Revision Application No.18/2005 has some
material bearing on the relief of regularization that has been sought by the
petitioner. Its effect was required to be taken into consideration in the
subsequent proceedings. Failure to do so has therefore resulted in vitiating
the impugned order.
In view of aforesaid, the order dated 17.7.2014 passed in
Complaint ULP No. 33/2006 is set aside on the ground that the earlier order
passed by the Industrial Court dated 5.9.2009 was not taken into
consideration. The proceedings in the complaint are restored for being
decided afresh in accordance with law. It is made clear that this Court has
not examined respective challenge on the merits of the rival claims. As the
.....5/-
wp1632 & 3460-15
complaint pertains to the year 2006, proceedings before the Industrial Court
are expedited and the same shall be decided by the end of December, 2016.
The parties shall appear before the Industrial Court on 11th July, 2016.
The petitions are disposed of in above terms. No costs.
ig JUDGE
Hirekhan
...../-
