Wednesday, 29, Apr, 2026
 
 
 
Expand O P Jindal Global University
 
  
  
 
 
 

Chief Officer Municipal Council ... vs Dashrath Bhimrao Mamadge
2017 Latest Caselaw 1903 Bom

Citation : 2017 Latest Caselaw 1903 Bom
Judgement Date : 20 April, 2017

Bombay High Court
Chief Officer Municipal Council ... vs Dashrath Bhimrao Mamadge on 20 April, 2017
Bench: P.R. Bora
                                       1                             10 wp 7302.04.odt



         IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY
                               BENCH AT AURANGABAD


                        WRIT PETITION NO. 7302 OF 2004

        The Chief Officer,
        Municipal Council, Udgir.                       ...       Petitioner

                 Vs.

      Dashrath Bhimrao Mamadge,
      Age: 50 yrs, Occ: Nil,
      R/o c/o Marathwada Lal Bavta,
      Kamgar Union, Udgir through
      Secretary                                ...                Respondent
                                ----
Mr. V.V. Bhavthankar, Advocate for the Petitioner.
Mr. B.B. Yenge, Advocate for the Respondent.
                                ----

                                           CORAM : P.R. BORA, J.

DATE : 20-04-2017.

ORAL JUDGMENT :

1. The petitioner-municipal council has filed the present

petition challenging the order passed by the Labour Court, Latur in

Reference (IDA) No. 37 of 1998. Vide the award passed by the

learned Labour Court in the aforesaid reference application, the

Municipal Council, Udgir was directed to reinstate the present

respondent as Class-IV employee.

2. Shri V.V. Bhavthankar, the learned counsel appearing for

the petitioner-municipal council submits that, the respondent was a

daily wager and it was the case of the respondent himself that he

was a daily wager, in the statement of claim filed by him in the

aforesaid reference application. In the circumstances, according to

2 10 wp 7302.04.odt

the learned counsel, the learned Labour Court ought to have passed

an order directing the petitioner-municipal council to reinstate him

on the post on which he was working and in the capacity as he was

working i.e. as a Daily wager. Shri Bhavthankar, pointed out that

on 05.02.2007 when the present matter was taken up for hearing,

this Court had passed a reasoned order granting interim relief in

favour of the Municipal Council, thereby, allowing the Municipal

Council to reinstate the respondent as a Daily wager and not as a

Class-IV employee. The learned counsel submits that, the said

order has been complied with by the Udgir Municipal Council.

3. Shri B.B.Yenge, the learned counsel appearing for the

respondent, though, sought to canvass that infact respondent was

liable to be made permanent and, as such, no fault can be found in

the award passed by the learned Labour Court.

4. I am however not convinced with the submissions so

made by Shri Yenge. When it was the case of the respondent-

employee in the dispute referred by him to the authorities that, he

was working as a daily wager and was abruptly terminated, the

scope of reference application would not have been enlarged by the

learned Labour Court by directing the Municipal Council to reinstate

the respondent-employee on Class-IV post. The only order which

Labour Court could have passed in the said reference application

was to direct the Municipal Council to reinstate the respondent-

                                               3                            10 wp 7302.04.odt



employee as a daily wager.


5. In the circumstances, it appears to me that, the present

petition can be disposed of by making the interim order passed by

this Court on 05.02.2007 absolute. Order accordingly.

6. It was pointed out by Shri Yenge that the respondent

had approached the Industrial Court seeking the relief of

permanency, however, the said complaint has been disposed of by

the Industrial Court observing that, the present Writ Petition is

pending in this Court. The learned counsel also pointed out that,

while disposing of the said complaint the Industrial Court has given

liberty to the Workmen for initiating fresh proceedings after the Writ

Petition is decided. Need not to state that, it would be open for the

respondent/workmen to avail the said remedy.

7. With the observations as above, the Writ Petition stands

allowed. Rule made absolute in above terms.

(P.R. BORA) JUDGE

mub

 
Download the LatestLaws.com Mobile App
 
 
Latestlaws Newsletter
 

Publish Your Article

 

Campus Ambassador

 

Media Partner

 

Campus Buzz

 

LatestLaws Guest Court Correspondent

LatestLaws Guest Court Correspondent Apply Now!
 

LatestLaws.com presents: Lexidem Offline Internship Program, 2026

 

LatestLaws.com presents 'Lexidem Online Internship, 2026', Apply Now!

 
 

LatestLaws Partner Event : IJJ

 

LatestLaws Partner Event : Smt. Nirmala Devi Bam Memorial International Moot Court Competition

 
 
Latestlaws Newsletter