Zilla Parishad, Amravati Through ... vs Pralhad S/O Tulshiramji Talokar ...
2016 Latest Caselaw 3483 Bom

                                                                                        wp1041.15
                                                   1

         IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY NAGPUR BENCH 




                                                                                        
                                 NAGPUR.

                      WRIT    PETITION     NO.     1041    OF     2015




                                                                
    Zilla Parishad, Amravati




                                                               
    through Chief Executive
    Officer, Zilla Parishad, 
    Amravati, Distt.Amravati.                                                PETITIONER.




                                                
                                                VERSUS

    1] Pralhad Tulshiramji 
    Talokar, aged adult, R/o
                              
    Bramhansabha Colony,
                             
    at Paratwada, Tah. 
    Achalpur, Distt.Amravati. 

    2] The State of Maharashtra
    through its Secretary, Rural
      


    Development Department,
    Mantralaya, Mumbai.                                                      RESPONDENTS.

Shri J. B. Kasat, Advocate for the petitioner.

Shri N. R. Saboo, Advocate for the respondent no.1.

Shri K. L. Dharmadhikari, Assistant Government Pleader for respondent no. 2.

                              CORAM:     A. S. CHANDURKAR  J.
                               
                                      Dated    :   JUNE  29, 2016.





    ORAL JUDGMENT: 


                   Rule.     Heard   finally   with   consent   of   learned   counsel   for   the 

    parties.  

    2]             The petitioner Zilla Parishad is aggrieved by the judgment of the 

Industrial Court dated 28.09.2014 whereby the complaint preferred by the

wp1041.15

respondent no.1 under Items 5, 6 and 9 of the Schedule IV of the

Maharashtra Recognition of Trade Unions and Prevention of Unfair Labour

Practices Act, 1971 has been allowed with a direction to grant all service

benefits flowing from permanency from the date of appointment of the

respondent no.1.

3] It is the case of the respondent no.1 that being duly qualified to

hold the post of Electrician he was so appointed on the said post on

22.12.1986. It is his further case that thereafter he was regularly discharging

his duties but his services came to be terminated on 04.09.1995. He,

therefore, approached the Labour Court which granted interim relief in his

complaint. The said complaint was finally allowed on 03.03.2006. The

respondent no.1 thereafter filed the present proceedings praying that his

services be regularised on the post of Electrician from the date of his

appointment. The complaint was opposed by the petitioner by taking a stand

that the appointment of respondent was in a Scheme that was being

operated through the Ground Water Surveys and Development Agency. It

was therefore pleaded that the respondent no.1 would not be entitled for

regularisation of his services. After the parties led evidence the Industrial

Court decided the complaint and passed the impugned order allowing the

same.

3] Shri J. B. Kasat, the learned counsel for the petitioner submitted

that the respondent no.1 was not entitled for the relief of regularisation. The

appointment of the respondent no.1 was under a Scheme which was

wp1041.15

introduced by the State Government and supervised by the Zilla Parishad.

The staffing pattern of the Zilla Parishad was different and services of the

employees appointed under the Scheme could not be regularised. He,

therefore, submitted that the Industrial Court without considering these

aspects allowed the complaint.

4] Shri N. R. Saboo, the learned counsel for the respondent no. 1

supported the impugned judgment. He submitted that the respondent no.1

had been selected after following the due procedure. His name was

sponsored by the Employment Exchange after which he had cleared the

written examination as well as interview. He submitted that Industrial Court

was justified in holding that the work of Electrician was of a perennial nature

and by not regularising the services, an unfair labour practice had been

committed. He, therefore, submitted that there was no reason to interfere

with the impugned order. Without prejudice to the said submission it was

pointed out that in somewhat similar circumstances this Court in Writ

Petition No. 1309 of 2008 decided on 13.04.2015 and Writ Petition No. 3145

of 2015 decided on 02.04.2016 has maintained the order of regularisation

passed by the Industrial Court but granted monetary benefit from the date of

filing of the complaint.

Shri K. L. Dharmadhikari the learned Assistant Government

Pleader appears for respondent no. 2.

5] I have perused the documents placed on record as well as the

judgments referred to. The Industrial Court after considering the evidence on

wp1041.15

record found that the name of the respondent no.1 was sponsored by the

Employment Exchange and after clearing the written examination as well as

the interview, the appointment order dated 13.12.1985 came to be issued. It

has then been found that there were 10 sanctioned posts of Electrician and

including the respondent no.1, nine electricians were actually working. On

that basis a finding was recorded that the stand of the petitioner that the post

of electrician was not sanctioned was incorrect. After considering the cases

of similarly situated employees the complaint came to be allowed.

6] Considering the observations of the Industrial Court in

paragraphs 12 to 14 of the impugned order it cannot be said that the

Industrial Court committed any error in directing the regularisation of the

services of the respondent no.1. The stand that as the respondent no. 1 was

appointed under a Scheme, his services could not be regularised cannot be

accepted in view of the fact that the respondent no.1 was working on a

sanctioned post since the year 1985. Similar benefit of permanency was

granted to other employees who were also appointed under the Scheme.

Hence said direction issued by the Industrial Court does not deserve to be

interfered with.

7] In so far as the relief of service benefits from the date of

appointment is concerned, it has been held by this Court in the aforesaid

judgments that though the employees would be entitled for all the benefits

flowing from the order of permanency from the date of their appointment,

the actual monetary benefits should be paid from the date of the complaint.

wp1041.15

To that extent the order passed by the Industrial Court is liable to be

modified. In the present case the complaint has been filed on 22.11.2006.

8] In view of aforesaid the following order is passed:

a] The judgment dated 20.09.2014 passed by the Industrial Court

in Complaint (ULPN) No. 93 of 2006 is partly modified.

b]It is held that though the respondent no.1 is entitled for all

service benefits of permanency from the date of his appointment, he would

be entitled for monetary benefits from the date of filing of the complaint

which is 22.11.2006. Rule is made absolute in aforesaid terms. No costs.

JUDGE

svk