Bombay High Court
Shubhada Datatray Phadke vs The President, Nandurbar And ... on 22 September, 2016
Bench: R.V. Ghuge
WP/2177/1995
1
IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE OF BOMBAY
BENCH AT AURANGABAD
WRIT PETITION NO. 2177 OF 1996
WITH
CIVIL APPLICATION NO. 5160 OF 2015
Mrs. Shubhada Dattatraya Phadake
an Indian Inhabitant of Nandurbar
residing at Behere Wada, Jayant Chowk,
Nandurbar, Dist. Dhule. ..Petitioner
Versus
1. President,
Nandurbar Nagar Parishad,ig
Nandurbar, District Dhule.
2. S.V.Vitkar,
Member, Industrial Court,
Nasik.
...
Advocate for Petitioner : Shri R.R.Bangar
Advocate for Respondent 1 : Shri Y.B.Bolkar
h/f Shri R.B.Raghuvanshi
...
CORAM : RAVINDRA V. GHUGE, J.
Dated: September 22, 2016
...
ORAL JUDGMENT :-
1. The petitioner is aggrieved by the judgment of the Industrial
Court dated 30.9.1993, by which, Complaint (ULP) No.1047 of 1989
has been dismissed.
2. Respondent No.2 is the Industrial Court and hence, stands
deleted.
WP/2177/1995
3. This petition was admitted on 28.8.1995 (filed on 7.3.1994)
and Rule was expedited.
4. Grievance is that though the petitioner was working from
11.9.1975 as a Nurse with the Dispensary of the respondent -
Municipal Council, she was illegally terminated on 8.7.1985. Her
Complaint (ULP) No.54 of 1985 was allowed and she was granted
reinstatement with continuity and full backwages. The Revision No.
27 of 1987 filed by the respondent was dismissed on 10.7.1987. She
has been working continuously. Having completed 240 days in
continuous service in each year, she deserves to be granted
regularization. The Industrial Court has erroneously dismissed her
complaint without proper application of mind.
5. The Industrial Court lost sight of the fact that the petitioner
could not be deprived of permanency and regularization, considering
her continuous employment. One Mrs. Anandi Jayakar has been made
permanent and that establishes the malafide intention of the
respondent. The impugned judgment, therefore, deserves to be
quashed and set aside.
6. Learned Advocate for the respondent No.1 has supported the
impugned judgment. He submits that as the petitioner had
WP/2177/1995
approached this Court in Writ Petition No.6393 of 1987, the direction
given by this Court was binding upon the petitioner. The Industrial
Court has rightly considered the direction of this Court and has
dismissed the complaint.
7. I have considered the submissions of the learned Advocates
and have gone through the petition paper book with their assistance.
8.
There is no dispute that the petitioner was the respondent
before this Court in Writ Petition No.6393 of 1987. On 13.12.1989,
this Court passed the following order:-
" The petitioner shall continue the respondent in
employment on daily wages muster roll without any break
until she would be permanently absorbed as a Nurse in the
hospital on her selection by the competent authority.
The respondent shall apply for the post of Nurse as and
when such advertisement is given."
9. It is informed by the respondent / management that after such
an advertisement was published, the petitioner had applied and was
not selected.
10. In my view, the Industrial Court had rightly refrained from
granting an order of absorption in favour of the petitioner
WP/2177/1995
considering the direction of this Court, reproduced above. When this
Court had directed the petitioner to apply for the post of Nurse, as
and when an advertisement was published, her non-selection would
not have created a right for absorption and the Industrial Court had
rightly refrained from granting her such absorption.
11. In the light of the above, this petition being devoid of merits
is, therefore, dismissed. Rule is discharge.
12.
Pending Civil Application would not survive in the light of this
judgment and is, therefore, disposed off.
( RAVINDRA V. GHUGE, J. )
...
akl/d
