Bombay High Court
The Tahsildar Wardha And 2 Others vs Smt. Shakuntalabai Mahadeorao ... on 18 October, 2016
Bench: Prasanna B. Varale
1 WP5062.13.odt
IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY
: NAGPUR BENCH : NAGPUR.
WRIT PETITION NO. 5062 OF 2013
PETITIONER : 1] The Tahsildar, Wardha,
Tahsil and District Wardha.
2] The Manager,
Government Godown Wardha,
Tahsil and District Wardha
ig 3] The District Supply Officer, Wardha,
through its Collector, Wardha,
Tahsil and District Wardha.
- VERSUS -
RESPONDENTS : 1] Smt. Shakuntalabai Mahadeorao Charde,
Aged about 30 years,
R/o Gond Plot, Wardha,
Tahsil & District Wardha.
2] The Industrial Court, Nagpur.
-------------------------------------------------------------
Mr. H. R. Dhumale, Asst. Govt. Pleader for the petitioners.
Mr. P. D. Meghe, Advocate for the respondent no.1.
------------------------------------------------------------
CORAM : PRASANNA B. VARALE, J.
DATE : OCTOBER 18, 2016.
ORAL JUDGMENT
By the present petition, the petitioners challenge the
judgment and order passed by respondent no.2 - Industrial Court,
Nagpur, in Complaint ULP No.174/2005, dated 09.09.2011, thereby
2 WP5062.13.odt
directing the petitioners to give permanency to the respondent no.1 in
service.
2] By order dated 12.11.2013, the petition was admitted by
this Court and the prayer for interim relief was rejected.
3] The facts giving rise to the present petition can be
summarized as follows :
The respondent no.1 herein was working as a Class-IV
employee on daily wages in the godown of Civil Supply Department of
Government of Maharashtra, with effect from 10.06.1986. She was
assigned with the duty of cleaning the premises and cleaning the
foodgrains in the godown to be distributed through the fair price shops
4] It was the case of the respondent no.1 that she worked with
the respondents continuously without any break and was subjected to
termination by order, dated 01.07.1991. Being aggrieved by the said
termination, the respondent no.1 approached the learned Labour Court
by filing Complaint ULP No. 821/1991. The complaint was allowed by
the Labour Court by order dated 11.02.2002 and the order of
termination was set aside with directions to the petitioner authorities to
3 WP5062.13.odt
reinstate the respondent no.1 with full backwages and continuity in
service. Being aggrieved by the order of the learned Labour Court, the
petitioner-authorities filed Revision ULPA bearing No.74/2002. Initially
interim order was passed in the revision granting stay to the back
wages and subsequently by order, dated 23.12.2004, the Industrial
Court could not find favour with the petitioner-authorities and
dismissed the revision thereby confirming the order of the learned
Labour Court.
5] It was submitted that as the respondent no.1 was in
continuous service with the petitioner-authorities and the order of
termination was set aside by the Labour Court and confirmed by the
Industrial Court, the respondent no.1 ought to have been treated as a
permanent employee and she ought to have been granted the
consequential benefits. On these grounds, the respondent no.1/
complainant filed Complaint ULPA No.174/2005 before the Industrial
Court. The Industrial Court framed the issues namely -
1] Does the complainant prove that the respondents
have engaged in unfair labour practice under Items 6
and 9 of Schedule IV of the MRTU & PULP Act by not
regularizing her services ?
2] Does the complainant prove that she is entitled for
the benefits of regularization from the date of
completing 240 days service ?
4 WP5062.13.odt
The parties to the proceedings led evidence and the Industrial Court by
answering both the issues in affirmative allowed the complaint by the
impugned order dated 09.09.2011, thereby holding the petitioner-
authorities responsible for engaging themselves in unfair labour practice
under Items 6 and 9 of Schedule-IV of the Maharashtra Recognition
of Trade Union and Prevention of Unfair Labour Practices Act,
1971 by not regularizing the complainant in service.
6] In challenge to the impugned order passed by the Industrial
Court, the learned Assistant Government Pleader vehemently submitted
that there was no material before the Industrial Court to arrive at a
conclusion that the respondent no.1 had worked for 240 days in a
calender year. The learned AGP submitted that neither there were
pleadings to that effect in the complaint nor oral evidence tendered by
the complainant herself was supporting her contentions. The learned
AGP also made an attempt to place reliance on the judgment of the
Hon'ble Apex Court in the case of Secretary, State of Karnataka .vs.
Umadevi, (A.I.R. 2006 S.C. 1806) in support his submission.
7] Per contra, Mr. Meghe, the learned counsel for the
respondent no.1 supported the order impugned in the petition.
5 WP5062.13.odt
The learned counsel invited my attention to the pleadings and oral
evidence of the respondent no.1 as well as the witnesses on behalf
of the petitioner-authorities. The learned counsel placed reliance
on the judgment of the Hon'ble Apex Court reported in 2009 III
CLR 262 in the case of Maharashtra State Road Transport
Corporation and another .vs. Casteribe Rajya P. Karmachari
Sanghatana and the unreported judgments of this Court in Writ
Petition No.6432 of 2006, dated 17.07.2009 (Vansaurakshak,
Yavatmal .vs. Abdul Ajij Abdul Latif) and Letters Patent Appeal No.
201 of 2010 (arising out of W.P.No.6432/2006), dated 21.7.2010.
8] I have heard the rival contentions of the learned
counsel for the parties and with their assistance, I have gone
through the material placed on record. Though, it was the attempt
of the learned AGP to submit that neither there were pleadings in
the complaint nor the evidence was supportive to the case of the
complainant, I am unable to accept the submission of the learned
AGP. Perusal of the copy of complaint makes it more than clear
that by referring to all the facts namely, challenge to the
termination effected against the complainant and the orders
6 WP5062.13.odt
passed by the competent forum like Labour Court and Industrial
Court, the respondent submitted her claim of working with the
petitioner authorities for more than 240 days in a calender year.
It would be useful to refer to the evidence of the complainant.
9] In the cross-examination, an attempt was made to
suggest to the complainant that she was working as and when she
was engaged to do the work, to which she flatly denied. On the
contrary, the complainant submitted that she was working with the
petitioner-authorities on all working days of the month and was
being paid the wages @ Rs.12.60 per day. Though, the learned
AGP submitted that no documents were placed on record by the
complainant, the submission of the learned AGP cannot be
accepted for the simple reason that the respondent/ complainant
was a Class-IV employee and a lady engaged on the work of
sweeping and cleaning the premises of godown, whereas the
petitioners, who are the authorities of the State and it was for
these authorities to place the record before the competent forum to
substantiate their claim and it was the burden on them to produce
the record. Apart from this, it would be interesting enough to refer
7 WP5062.13.odt
to the evidence of the witness of the petitioners namely one
Narayan Thakre. In the cross-examination, this witness Narayan
Thakre stated that at the relevant time, he was working as
Inspecting Officer in the office of Tahsildar, Wardha. He stated
that the respondent no.1 joined the service in the year 1986. Her
working hours were from 10.00 a.m. to 6.00 p.m. on working
days. He further deposed in her cross-examination that the
respondent no.1 was working in a grain godown at Wardha under
Tahsildar, Wardha. Her duty was to keep the grain in bags which
is split on floor of godown. The work of respondent/complainant
was perennial nature. This witness then deposed that except the
complainant, there was no other employee to do the said work.
10] The Industrial Court, thus, considering the material
placed on record and more particularly, considering the evidence
of the witnesses including witness Shri Narayan Thakre and the
examination of complainant herself found that the respondents
were guilty of engaging in unfair Labour practice under Items 6
and 9 of Schedule IV of the MRTU & PULP Act, 1971. Though, the
learned AGP made an attempt to place reliance on the judgment of
8 WP5062.13.odt
the Hon'ble Apex Court in the case of Secretary, State of
Karnataka .vs. Umadevi (supra), I am unable to accept the
submission of the learned AGP on the backdrop of the position of
law reflected in Umadevi's case.
11] The learned Assistant Government Pleader made an
attempt to submit that there are Rules framed by the State of
Maharashtra for regulating recruitment to the posts in Group D
service. A copy of said notification, dated 30.10.1995 is placed on
record along with the petition at Annexure-F.
12] As the facts of the present case are that the
respondent/complainant was engaged in 1986 in Class IV category
post for cleaning and sweeping the godown, the submission of the
learned AGP of placing reliance on the Rules referred to in the
Notification, dated 30.10.1995, can neither be accepted nor can be
of any help to him considering the peculiar aspect of the present
case.
13] Considering all the aforesaid facts, in my opinion, no
error is committed by the Industrial Court in passing the judgment
9 WP5062.13.odt
and order dated 09.09.2011 in Complaint ULPA No.174/2005.
The writ petition thus being meritless deserves to be dismissed and
the same is accordingly dismissed. Rule discharged. No order as
to costs.
JUDGE
Diwale
