Bombay High Court
The Joint Director, Heal Service ... vs Suresh S/O Rushi Suryavanshi And ... on 30 March, 2016
Bench: S.B. Shukre
wp3292.14.odt 1/3
IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY
NAGPUR BENCH : NAGPUR
WRIT PETITION NO. 3292 OF 2014
1. The Joint Director,
Health Service Department,
Mumbai.
2. Deputy Director,
Health Services, Akola.
3. District Civil Surgeon,
General Hospital,
Amravati. :: PETITIONERS
.. Versus
..
1. Suresh s/o Rushi Suryavanshi
aged about 31 yrs., Occp. Service,
c/o Shri Vasu Meshram,
Ramabai Ambedkar Nagar, Amravati.
2. Sanjay s/o Sadashivrao Shinde
aged about 28 yrs., Occp. Service,
r/o Bachharaj Plot, Shivnathbabu's Wada,
Near Shriram Oil Mill, Amravati.
3. Gajanan s/o Sitaram Tarhekar
aged about 38 yrs., Occp. Service
r/o New Hanuman Nagar,
Behind V.M.V. Amravati.
4. Rameshwar s/o Shankarrao Jawanjal,
aged about 26 yrs. Occp. Service,
r/o Sanjay Gandhi Nagar No.2,
Near Gautambuddha Statue, Amravati.
5. Ashok s/o Kashiram Rathod,
aged about 30 yrs., Occp. Service,
C/o Ramteke Murtikar, Fating Market,
Shanti Nagar, Amravati.
::: Uploaded on - 26/04/2016 ::: Downloaded on - 31/07/2016 11:02:55 :::
wp3292.14.odt 2/3
6. Prakash s/o Chakradhar Makeshwar,
aged about 28 yrs., Occp. Service,
r/o Vilas Nagar No.2
Amravati.. :: RESPONDENTS
...................................................................................................................................
Ms T. H. Udeshi, A.G.P. for the petitioners.
Shri S. G. Jagtap, Advocate for the respondents.
...................................................................................................................................
CORAM : S. B. SHUKRE, J.
DATED : 30th MARCH, 2016.
O R A L J U D G M E N T
O R A L J U D G M E N T
1. Heard.
2. Rule. Rule made returnable forthwith. Heard finally by
consent. The petitioner-employer has challenged the order passed by
the Industrial Court on 13/8/2012 allowing Complaint (ULP) No. 499
of 1998 filed by the respondents under Section 28 of the Maharashtra
Recognition of Trade Unions and Prevention of Unfair Labour Practices
Act, 1971.
3. The Industrial Court has recorded the finding that
respondents are in continuous employment of the petitioners since
1989. The complaint came to be filed by the respondents in the year
1998.
4. Perusal of documents annexed with the record show that
the post of Sweeper/Ward Boy is still in existence and lying vacant and
even then the services of the respondents have not been regularized.
5. The petitioner-employer has not been able to point out that
wp3292.14.odt 3/3
the findings recorded by the Industrial Court could be seen as illegal or
perverse.
6. The Industrial Court has recorded a finding that the
respondents are working with the petitioner-employer more than 25
years. It is undisputed that the respondents are in the employment of
the petitioner till date and they have been granted permanency w.e.f.
31/8/1998. Therefore, they would be entitled to monetary benefits
w.e.f. 31/8/1998, which may be paid to them as per rules.
7.
I see no reason to interfere with the impugned order. The
writ petition is dismissed. No costs. Rule discharged.
JUDGE
wwl
