Chief Executive ... vs Suresh Padmakarrao Tawar
2017 Latest Caselaw 1997 Bom

                                                                                       1                                       W.P. 907.1999 - [ J ]


                        IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY
                                    BENCH AT AURANGABAD


                                                WRIT PETITION NO. 907 OF 1999



                        1.          Chief Executive Officer,
                                    Jilla Parishad, Jalna.


                        2.          Executive Engineer,
                                    Irrigation              Division,                                    .... PETITIONERS/
                                    Jilla Parishad, Jalna.                                      [ORI. RESPONDENTS]



                                                             VERSUS


                        Suresh s/o Padmakarrao Tawar
                        Age : 25 Yrs., Occ. : Service,
                        R/o : Saraswati                       Niwas,
                        Behind Walimba's house,                                                          .... RESPONDENT/
                        Jalna, Dist. Jalna.                                                     [ORI. COMPLAINANT]


                                                             .............................


                                                Mr. V.D.Salunke, Advocate for Petitioners.
                                                             .............................
                                                                                 CORAM : P.R.BORA, J.

DATE OF JUDGMENT : 25th APRIL, 2017 .............................

ORAL JUDGMENT :

1. Heard Mr. V.D.Salunke, learned counsel for the

2 W.P. 907.1999 - [ J ]

petitioners.

2. The Order dated 23/12/1996 passed by the

Industrial Court, Jalna in Complaint [ULP] No. 597/1994

[old No. 145/1991] is challenged in the present Writ

Petition. The respondent had filed aforesaid Complaint

alleging commission of unfair labour practice by the

petitioners under Item Nos. 9 and 10 of Schedule IV of the

Maharashtra Recognition of Trade Unions and Prevention

of Unfair Labour Practices Act, 1971 [for short, 'MRTU &

PULP Act']. It was the case of the respondent that he was

orally terminated by the petitioners without complying the

mandatory requirements under the provisions of the

Industrial Disputes Act, 1947. It was the assertion of the

respondent that he was working on the permanent post

and had worked for more than 240 days in a calender

year and as such his services could not have been

terminated orally and without following due procedure of

law.

3. Though the Complaint filed by the respondent

was strongly resisted by the present petitioners, learned

Industrial Court vide impugned order held that the

petitioners had indulged in commission of unfair labour

3 W.P. 907.1999 - [ J ]

practices and has consequently directed the petitioners to

reinstate the respondent by giving him continuity in

service with back-wages.

4. No interim relief has been granted by this

Court. Though there is no authentic information on record,

there is reason to believe that the respondent must have

been reinstated in service, as directed by the Industrial

Court. Twenty one (21) years after passing of the

Judgment by the Industrial Court, there seems no

propriety now to enter into the merits of the petition filed

by the petitioners. Even otherwise, it does not appear to

me that any patent error has been committed by the

Industrial Court in allowing the Complaint filed by the

present respondent. The Industrial Court has passed well

reasoned order. It is observed by the Industrial Court that

the respondent had continuously worked with the

petitioners for more than 240 days in all preceding years

and as such his services could not have been terminated

without following the provisions u/s 25-F of the Industrial

Disputes Act, 1947.

5. In view of the above, Writ Petition stands

dismissed, however without any order as to costs.

                                                                                        4                                       W.P. 907.1999 - [ J ]


                        Rule discharged.



                                                                                        [P.R.BORA, J.]

                        KNP/W.P. 907.1999 - [ J ]