Sanjot Hanmant Raut vs Mukhya Karyakari Adhikari ...
2016 Latest Caselaw 6095 Bom

                                         1




                                                                          
             IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE OF BOMBAY   
                         BENCH AT AURANGABAD




                                                  
                      WRIT PETITION NO.2308 OF 2016

    Bharat S/o Baburao Jadhav,
    Age-43 years, Occu-Service,
    R/o at Post - Darphal,




                                                 
    Tq. and Dist.Osmanabad                             -- PETITIONER 

    VERSUS




                                        
    1.     Mukhya Karyakari Adhikari
           Osmanabad Zilla Dekhrekh
           Sahakari Sanstha Maryadit,
                              
           Shahar Police Station Samor,
           Osmanabad,
                             
    2.     Chief General Manager,
           Rashtriya Krishi Aani Gramin 
           Vikas Bank (NABARD),
           Shivaji Nagar, Pune,
      


    3.     Maharashtra Shasan Dwara-
           Sachiv, Sahakar Khate,
   



           Mantralaya, Mumbai-32,

    4.     Chairman,
           Vividh Karyakari Sahakari





           Society Ltd., Darphal,
           Tq. and Dist-Osmanabad                      -- RESPONDENTS

WITH WRIT PETITION NO.2309 OF 2016

Jitendra S/o Shivaji Randive, Age-43 years, Occu-Service, R/o at Post - Sarola (Bru.) Tq. and Dist.Osmanabad -- PETITIONER

VERSUS

1. Mukhya Karyakari Adhikari Osmanabad Zilla Dekhrekh

khs/OCT.2016/2308-d

Sahakari Sanstha Maryadit, Shahar Police Station Samor,

Osmanabad,

2. Chief General Manager, Rashtriya Krishi Aani Gramin Vikas Bank (NABARD),

Shivaji Nagar, Pune,

3. Maharashtra Shasan Dwara-

Sachiv, Sahakar Khate,

Mantralaya, Mumbai-32,

4. Chairman, Vividh Karyakari Sahakari Society Ltd., Takli (Dhoki) Tq. and Dist-Osmanabad -- RESPONDENTS

WITH WRIT PETITION NO.2310 OF 2016

Sanjot S/o Hanmant Raut,

Age-30 years, Occu-Service, R/o Khadagagalli, Masjitijawal,

At Post : Osmanabad, Tq. and Dist.Osmanabad -- PETITIONER

VERSUS

1. Mukhya Karyakari Adhikari Osmanabad Zilla Dekhrekh Sahakari Sanstha Maryadit, Shahar Police Station Samor,

Osmanabad,

2. Chief General Manager, Rashtriya Krishi Aani Gramin Vikas Bank (NABARD), Shivaji Nagar, Pune,

3. Maharashtra Shasan Dwara-

Sachiv, Sahakar Khate, Mantralaya, Mumbai-32,

khs/OCT.2016/2308-d

4. Chairman, Vividh Karyakari Sahakari

Society Ltd., Gavsund, Tq. and Dist-Osmanabad -- RESPONDENTS

WITH WRIT PETITION NO.2311 OF 2016

Bhagyashree Basvantappa Yenegure, Age-41 years, Occu-Service, R/o at Post : Jevali, Tq.Lohara,

Dist.Osmanabad -- PETITIONER

VERSUS

1. Mukhya Karyakari Adhikari Osmanabad Zilla Dekhrekh

Sahakari Sanstha Maryadit, Shahar Police Station Samor, Osmanabad,

2. Chief General Manager,

Rashtriya Krishi Aani Gramin Vikas Bank (NABARD),

Shivaji Nagar, Pune,

3. Maharashtra Shasan Dwara-

Sachiv, Sahakar Khate,

Mantralaya, Mumbai-32,

4. Chairman, Vividh Karyakari Sahakari Society Ltd., Jewali,

Tq.Lohara and Dist-Osmanabad -- RESPONDENTS

Mr.V.D.Salunke, Advocate for the petitioners. Mr.H.T.Gaikwad, Advocate for respondent No.1. Respondent Nos. 2 and 4 served.

Mr.S.B.Joshi, AGP for respondent No.3.

( CORAM : RAVINDRA V. GHUGE, J.)

DATE : 17/10/2016

khs/OCT.2016/2308-d

PER COURT :

1. I have heard the learned Advocates for the respective sides.

The only issued raised in these petitions by the petitioners is that

despite their ULP complaints having been allowed by the Industrial

Court, Latur vide the impugned judgments, their pay scale has been

fixed from the date of the complaints and not from the dates of their

joining.

2. Though the learned Advocates for the respective sides have

canvassed several issues, I am not required to advert to their

submissions in their entirety considering the fact that, this court by

its judgment dated 06/03/2013 in Writ Petition Nos. 2500/2012,

2501/2012, 2502/2012, 2514/2012, 2515/2012, 2516/2012 in the

matter of the same respondents and identically placed employees,

has upheld the claims of the employees for pay scale from the dates

of their joining.

3. Mr.Gaikwad, however, strenuously submits that a

distinguishing feature in these cases is that the Industrial Court has

observed in the last paragraph of the impugned judgments that the

learned Advocate for the complainants/employees has orally

khs/OCT.2016/2308-d

conceded that their pay scales may be granted/fixed from the date of

the order of the Industrial Court. Once such a concession is granted,

the petitioners/employees cannot resile from their statement.

4. Mr.Salunke submits that the demand of these petitioners in

their complaints is much different than the purported oral

concession given by the learned advocate. Moreover, the respondents

have not challenged the impugned judgments. The

petitioners/complainants are before this court since they are

aggrieved by the said concession and the order of the Industrial

Court granting them a pay scale from the date of the order.

5. After considering the submissions of the learned Advocates, I

have called for the papers in Writ Petition No.2502/2012 in the group

of matters between the Chief Executive Officer, Osmanabad Zilla

Dekhrekh Sahkari Sanstha Maryadit, Osmanabad Vs. Vaijinath

Aabasaheb Shinde and others. The judgment of the same Industrial

Court, Latur in Complaint (ULP) No.26/2008 and connected

complaints, dated 23/09/2011 indicates that the Industrial Court

has granted the benefits of permanency and pay scale after one year

from the date of joining (8 months to be exact).

khs/OCT.2016/2308-d

6. The C.E.O. of Osmanabad Zilla Dekhrekh Sahkari Sanstha

Maryadit, Osmanabad approached this Court in Writ Petition Nos.

2500/2012, 2501/2012, 2502/2012, 2514/2012, 2515/2012,

2516/2012. By the judgment of this Court running into 32 pages

dated 06/03/2013, this Court has observed in paragraph No.16 and

17 as under :-

"16. Therefore, it follows from the authoritative pronouncement of

the Supreme Court in case of Casteribe Rajya P.Karmchari Sanghatana (supra) that power of Industrial and Labour Court

u/s 30 of the Act did not call for adjudication or consideration before the Constitution Bench in the case of Umadevi (supra) and does not denude the Industrial or Labour Court of their

statutory power under Section 30 r/w Section 32 of the said Act to order permanency of workers, who have been victims of

unfair labour practice on part of employer under Item 6 of Schedule IV of the Act.

17. For the aforesaid reasons, the view taken by the Industrial Court is in consonance with the material placed on record and after appreciation of the entire evidence. Therefore, the said view is a reasonable and possible view. Once this Court comes

to the conclusion that the view taken by the Industrial Court is a reasonable possible view, even though another view is possible, that by itself is not a ground to cause interference in extraordinary jurisdiction of this Court.

Therefore, for the reasons aforesaid, the impugned judgments and orders passed by the Industrial Court deserve

khs/OCT.2016/2308-d

no interference. Writ petitions are devoid of any merits and stand rejected."

7. Learned Advocate for the petitioners/employees in these

petitions had appeared for identically placed employees in the said

petitions which were decided by this Court on 06/03/2013.

8. Considering the fact that the petitioners in these matters are

identically placed with the employees in the earlier group and the

respondents in these cases are the identical parties in the said group

of matters, coupled with the fact that no distinguishing facts with

regard to the services of these petitioners have been pointed out, I am

not convinced that a different view could be taken in these matters.

The issue involved has already been decided and settled in this Court

by the said judgment dated 06/03/2013.

9. Mr.Gaikwad then submits that in a short order dated

12/02/2015 delivered by the learned Division Bench of this Court in

WP No.495/2014 would indicate that the benefits of the pay scale

have been given from the date of the order. I find that the

petitioners/workmen in those cases had not approached the

Industrial Court seeking declaration of ULP for not according benefits

khs/OCT.2016/2308-d

and alleging violation of Item 6 and 9 of Schedule IV. A declaration

of unfair labour practices was sought against the establishment

under Item 6 and 9 of Schedule IV. The learned Single Judge

concluded that failure to pay salary as per fixed pay scale is a ULP

and therefore when permanency was to be granted after completion

of one year, incidental and consequential benefits thereto would be

available to the employees from the date of permanency and therefore

non payment of such pay scale would amount to a ULP.

10. Learned Advocates for the respective sides submit that they

have no information as to whether the C.E.O. Osmanabad Zilla

Dekhrekh Sahakari Sanstha Maryadit has challenged the judgment

of this Court dated 06/03/2013 before the Hon'ble Apex Court. They

further submit that they have not come across of any orders from the

Hon'ble Apex Court with regard to the said judgment dated

06/03/2013.

11. In the light of the above, since the facts emerging in the

petitions decided by this Court on 06/03/2013 are identical to the

facts emerging in these petitions, I am unable to take a different view

in the matter.

khs/OCT.2016/2308-d

12. In the light of the above, these petitions are partly allowed. The

directions of the Industrial Court in clause 4 of the order would

stand modified with the following directions:-

"Respondent No.1 is directed to fix the pay of the complainants

for the post of Group Secretary in the pay scale of Rs.4000- 6000 with effect from the completion of one year in service by these petitioners and benefits consequential thereto as are

provided by the service conditions shall be extended to such complainants."

( RAVINDRA V. GHUGE, J.)

khs/OCT.2016/2308-d