Citation : 2017 Latest Caselaw 1903 Bom
Judgement Date : 20 April, 2017
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
Publish Your Article
Campus Ambassador
Media Partner
Campus Buzz
LatestLaws.com presents: Lexidem Offline Internship Program, 2026
LatestLaws.com presents 'Lexidem Online Internship, 2026', Apply Now!