Bombay High Court
The Chief Officer Municipal ... vs Mrs Anupama Trimbakrao Sadanande on 18 March, 2016
Bench: R.V. Ghuge
WP 5106/05
- 1 -
IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY
BENCH AT AURANGABAD
WRIT PETITION NO.5106/2005
The Chief Officer,
Municipal Council, Udgir.
Tq.Udgir Dist.Latur.
...Petitioner..
Versusig
Smt.Anupama w/o Trimbakrao Sadanande,
aged 25 yrs., occu.service,
r/o Church Road, Udgir.
Dist.Latur.
...Respondent...
.....
Shri S.C. Swami, Advocate h/f Shri V.D. Gunale, Advocate
for petitioner.
Shri A.M. Nagarkar, Advocate h/f Shri K.M. Nagarkar,
Advocate for respondent.
.....
CORAM: RAVINDRA V. GHUGE, J.
DATE: 18.03.2016
ORAL JUDGMENT :
1] The petitioner is aggrieved by the judgment and
order dated 25.1.2005 delivered by the Industrial Court
in Complaint (ULP) No.351/2004 (old No.119/2008) by which
the complaint has been allowed.
WP 5106/05
- 2 -
2] This petition was admitted on 31.8.2006 only
after the respondent tendered a communication dated
29.6.2005 issued by the Chief Officer, Nagar Parishad,
Latur (the petitioner herein) to the District Collector,
Latur, wherein it has been stated that steps are being
taken by the petitioner for regularizing the services of
the respondent - employee on the post reserved for the
physically challenged. This Court, therefore, observed
that it is clear that the services of the respondent are
being regularized by the petitioner on the post reserved
for persons suffering from physical disability.
3] The order of this Court dated 31.8.2006 reads as
under:-
" Rule.
The respondent has filed a communication
dated 29.6.2005 issued by the Chief Executive
Officer, Nagar Parishad, Latur, to the
Collector, Latur, stating therein that steps are
being taken for regularising the services of
Smt.Anupama Sadanande on a post reserved for
physically challenged. In view of the aforesaid
communication, it is clear that the services of
the respondent are being regularised in Nagar
Parishad on a post reserved for the persons
suffering from physical disability. In view of
WP 5106/05
- 3 -
this position, no interim relief."
4] Shri Gunale, learned Advocate appearing on
behalf of the petitioner, strenuously submits that
despite an effort was made by the petitioner to file its
written statement in the complaint filed by the
respondent seeking regularization in service, the
Industrial Court has not accepted the written statement
and has proceeded to deliver the impugned judgment ex-
parte. It is not disputed that the respondent is in
employment from 21.1.1994, is a physically challenged
person and is still in employment today.
5] The learned Advocate for the respondent -
employee, has supported the impugned judgment.
6] I find from paragraph no.3 of the impugned
judgment that the Industrial Court has noted that despite
sufficient opportunities, the petitioner failed to file
its written statement. The order "proceed ex-parte" was
passed on 16.9.2004.
7] The Industrial Court has recorded in paragraph
no.5 of the impugned judgment that after a complete trial
in which the petitioner did not participate, while the
final judgment was being dictated, the petitioner
WP 5106/05
- 4 -
attempted to file a written statement. The Industrial
Court has, therefore, rejected the application as it was
already dictating the judgment in the complaint.
8] Considering the above and the statement recorded
by this Court on 31.8.2006, I do not find that this
petition deserves to be entertained. The same is,
therefore, dismissed. Rule is discharged.
9] Pending civil applications, if any, do not
survive and are disposed of.
(RAVINDRA V. GHUGE, J.)
ndk/c183164.doc
