Bombay High Court
Rajdhar Bhura Wagh vs Muncipal Council,Dhule & Others on 22 September, 2016
Bench: R.V. Ghuge
WP/2311/1996
1
IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE OF BOMBAY
BENCH AT AURANGABAD
WRIT PETITION NO. 2311 OF 1996
Rajdhar Bhura Wagh,
Indian Inhabitant of
at and post Bokar, Dhule
District Dhule. ..Petitioner
Versus
1. Municipal Council, Dhule
Through its Chief Officer.
2. D.V.Mangrulkar,
Judge, Labour Court, Dhule.
3. S.V.Vitkar,
Member, Industrial Court,
Nashik. ..Respondents
...
Petitioner : Served
Advocate for Respondent 1 : Shri P.M.Shah
Respondents 2 & 3 : Deleted
...
CORAM : RAVINDRA V. GHUGE, J.
Dated: November 22, 2016
...
ORAL JUDGMENT :-
1. Despite service of transfer notice, the petitioner has not
caused an appearance. Rather than dismissing the matter in default,
I have considered the case of the petitioner on the basis of the
petition paper book.
2. Respondent Nos.2 and 3 are the Labour and Industrial Courts
WP/2311/1996
and hence stand deleted from the petition.
3. Shri Shah, learned Advocate has supported the impugned
judgment.
4. The petitioner is aggrieved by the judgment dated 15.9.1994,
delivered by the Industrial Court, by which, the Revision (ULP) No.66
of 1991, filed by the respondent - then Municipal Council, has been
allowed.
5. The petitioner claimed to be working from January 1984 as a
Malaria Bigari. On 6.8.1988, he was terminated. Juniors were
retained in service. No notice, salary in lieu of notice or
retrenchment compensation was paid to the petitioner. He
approached the Labour Court in Complaint (ULP) No.96 of 1998. By
judgment dated 22.3.1991, the Complaint was allowed only on the
ground that the chart of number of days worked, placed on record
indicated that the petitioner had worked for 268 days in 1987. He
was granted reinstatement with continuity of service and was
deprived of backwages.
6. The Industrial Court, while considering the Revision Petition,
filed by the respondent, concluded that the petitioner had not
reported for work, though the Labour Court granted interim relief on
WP/2311/1996
19.1.1989. During the pendency of the complaint, when interim
relief was granted, he did not join duties. The chart below Exhibit
20, produced by the respondent was interpreted by the Labour Court,
which erroneously drew a conclusion that he has worked for 240 days
in one calendar year. When the said chart was closely perused by
the Industrial Court, it was revealed that in the twelfth calendar
month, preceding the date of reference i.e. 6.8.1988, the petitioner
had worked for only 224 days in between September 1987 and
6.8.1988.
7. The Industrial Court, therefore, concluded that as the
petitioner did not report for duties despite the interim order of the
Labour Court, it could be presumed that he was not interested in
employment.
8. Notwithstanding the above, it cannot be ignored that the
respondent is a State instrumentality. It does not have any power to
create posts, much less grant regularization on any post. The
petitioner was working on daily wages and as such, there was no post
available. Merely because in one year, the petitioner had completed
240 days in employment, could not have invited the direction of
reinstatement with continuity in service.
9. This Court, while admitting the petition on 29.9.1995, did not
WP/2311/1996
grant any interim relief to the petitioner.
10. In the light of the above, I do not find that the impugned
judgment of the Industrial Court could be termed as being perverse
or erroneous.
11. The petition being devoid of merits is, therefore, dismissed.
Rule is discharged.
ig ( RAVINDRA V. GHUGE, J. )
...
akl/d
