Bombay High Court
Damodhar Vinayakrao Kale And Anr vs The Mah.State Co,Opmarketing ... on 17 November, 2016
Bench: R.V. Ghuge
WP/868/1997+
1
IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE OF BOMBAY
BENCH AT AURANGABAD
WRIT PETITION NO. 868 OF 1997
1.The Maharashtra State Cooperative
Marketing Federation Limited,
H.O. Kanmoor House, Narsi Natha Street,
Bombay 400 009, through its
Managing Director.
2. The Maharashtra State Cooperative
Marketing Federation Limited,
Tarasing Market, 2nd Floor, Nanded
Through its District Marketing Officer. ..Petitioners
Versus
1. Damodhar Vinaykrao Kale,
Age 35 years, Occ.Service
R/o C/o The Maharashtra State
Cooperative Marketing Federation Ltd.,
Tarasing Market, 2nd Floor, Nanded
2. Bhausaheb Chandrabhan Dandge
Age 30 years, Occ. Service
R/o as above. ..Respondents
WITH
WRIT PETITION NO. 2884 OF 1998
1. Damodhar Vinaykrao Kale,
Age 44 years, Occ.Service
R/o C/o Kaulwar's house,
Gokunda, At post Tq. Kinwat,
District Nanded.
2. Bhausaheb Chandrabhan Dandge
Age 40 years, Occ. Service
R/o C/o District Marketing Office
Godown, Tq. Naigaon, Dist. Nanded. ..Petitioners
Versus
1.The Maharashtra State Cooperative
Marketing Federation Limited,
H.O. Kanmoor House, Narsi Natha Street,
::: Uploaded on - 19/11/2016 ::: Downloaded on - 20/11/2016 01:00:53 :::
WP/868/1997+
2
Bombay 400 009, (Through its
Managing Director.
2. The Maharashtra State Cooperative
Marketing Federation Limited,
Through its District Marketing Officer.
Tarasing Market, 2nd Floor, Nanded ..Respondents
...
Advocate for Petitioner : Shri D.N.Suryanwanshi
Advocate for Respondents : Shri Pradeep Shahane
...
CORAM : RAVINDRA V. GHUGE, J.
Dated: November 17, 2016
ig ...
ORAL JUDGMENT :-
1. The petitioner establishment in the first petition is the
respondent in the second petition. The respondent employees in the
first petition are the petitioners in the second petition. Both the
litigating sides have challenged the judgment of the Industrial Court
dated 7.8.1996, delivered in Complaint (ULP) No.64 of 1994 (Old No.
115 of 1998). Both these employees have attained their age of
superannuation, as they were 35 and 30 year's of age respectively in
1998.
2. This Court, while admitting the petitions on 15.7.1998, has
stayed the impugned judgment.
3. I have considered the strenuous submissions of Shri
Suryawanshi for the establishment and Shri Shahane for the
WP/868/1997+
employees.
4. There is no dispute that the employees had filed the ULP
Complaint claiming promotion as Clerks and for implementing the
terms of the agreement signed in 1982 and which remained in force
till 1988. A new settlement was signed in 1988 and which provided
for filling of 30% vacancies by promotion. The employees had also
claimed additional emolument for having temporarily worked as
Depot Managers.
5. The establishment put forth a case before the Industrial Court
that a recruitment drive was undertaken and the cases of these
employees were considered for promotion. 31 employees, as like the
employees in these cases, were invited for interviews, held on
24.9.1987. A written test was conducted which was followed by
interviews. Both these complaints were not selected and it is
thereafter, that they have filed their complaints in 1988. Though
they were not selected, they were given additional responsibilities on
temporary basis so that they would gather experience and could be
again considered for promotion in future.
6. There is no dispute about the settlement being applicable
from time to time. There is also no dispute that those workers, who
were given additional responsibilities temporarily, were entitled for
WP/868/1997+
additional emoluments as per the settlement.
7. On the basis of the oral and documentary evidence, the
Industrial Court came to a conclusion that the select list of promotee
candidates to the post of Clerks was prepared after conducting a
written test and oral interviews. The employees did not challenge
their non-selection before the Industrial Court. In my view, the
Industrial Court, therefore, rightly concluded that the complainant
employees have not discharged their burden by indicating as to who
were the junior employees, who were promoted by showing undue
favouritism and regardless of merits. The Industrial court, therefore,
rightly rejected the claim of the employees claiming promotion on
the ground that they have been superseded.
8. The other issue for adjudication raised in the complaint was as
to whether these two employees were entitled for additional
emoluments for having temporarily shouldered additional work
responsibilities. On the basis of the evidence, the Industrial Court
concluded that the establishment has admitted in the written
statement as well as in cross-examination that the employees were
given temporary charge as Godown Clerks or Depot Managers
intermittently and they are entitled for additional emoluments as per
the service conditions applicable.
WP/868/1997+
9. With such findings arrived at on the basis of the oral and
documentary evidence, I do not find any reason to brand such
conclusions as being perverse.
10. Shri Suryawanshi has contended on the basis of the charts
placed on record from pages 62 to 79 in the first petition that the
additional emoluments have already been paid to these two
employees and, therefore, the direction of the Industrial Court in the
second paragraph of the impugned order deserves to be set aside.
11. I do not find that his submissions need to be entertained for
the reason that the Industrial Court upon concluding that the two
employees had worked on temporary basis as in-charge Clerks or
Depot Managers, has held that, " The complainants are entitled to
claim additional emoluments of the post held as in-charge from the
date of their actual assumption of the charge till the date on which
they had actually worked on this post." This takes care of the
apprehension of the establishment since it is a presupposition that
such payment has to be made if not already paid.
12. In the light of the above, both the petitions are dismissed.
Rule is discharged.
13. Needless to state, that the two employees namely, Damodhar
WP/868/1997+
Vinayakarao Kale and Bhausaheb Chandrabhan Dandge would be at
liberty to submit their claims to the establishment after considering
the documents at pages 62 to 79 in the first petition and identify the
unpaid amounts to the establishment. If any amount is unpaid in the
light of the directions of the Industrial Court, the same shall be paid
by the establishment to the two employees, within eight weeks from
the date of receiving their representation and with interest at the
rate of 3% per annum from the date of the judgment of the Industrial
Court.
( RAVINDRA V. GHUGE, J. )
...
akl/d
