Bombay High Court
Shri. Gajanan Pundlik Patil vs State Of Maharashtra Through ... on 8 August, 2017
Bench: V.K. Tahilramani
jdk 1 3.cwp-8738.16.j.doc
IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY
CIVIL APPELLATE JURISDICTION
WRIT PETITION NO. 8738 OF 2016
Shri. Gajanan Pundlik Patil ]
Residing at Rajhans, Plot No. 19/20, ]
Shivenerinagar, Panchgaon, ]
Kolhapur 416013 ].. Petitioner
1. State of Maharashtra ]
Through Principal Secretary, ]
Higher and Technical Education, ]
Deptt. Mantralaya, Mumbai-32 ]
]
2. The Director of Education, ]
Directorate of Higher Education ]
Maharashtra State, Central Bldg. ]
Pune 411 001 ]
]
3. Joint Director of Higher Education ]
Kolhapur Division, ]
Rajaram College Compound, ]
Vidyanagar, Kolhapur-416004 ]
]
4. The Principal, ]
Rajaram Mahavidyalaya, ]
Sagarmal, Vidyanagar, ]
Kolhapur 416004 ].. Respondents
....
Mr. M.S. Topkar Advocate for Petitioner
Mr. N.C.Walimbe AGP for the State
....
1 of 6
::: Uploaded on - 10/08/2017 ::: Downloaded on - 12/08/2017 01:58:00 :::
jdk 2 3.cwp-8738.16.j.doc
CORAM : SMT.V.K.TAHILRAMANI AND
DR.SHALINI PHANSALKAR-JOSHI, JJ.
DATED : AUGUST 08, 2017
ORAL JUDGMENT [PER SMT. V.K.TAHILRAMANI,J.]:
1 Heard the learned advocate for the Petitioner and the
learned A.G.P. for Respondent Nos. 1 to 3.
2 Rule. By consent, rule is made returnable forthwith
and matter is finally heard.
3 This petition is preferred against the order dated
8.7.2016 passed by the Maharashtra Administrative Tribunal,
Mumbai Bench in Original Application No. 25 of 2015. In the
said Original Application, the petitioner was seeking
regularization of service as Laboratory Assistant at Rajaram
College Kolhapur with effect from 8.3.1999. The said original
application was dismissed, hence, this petition.
4 The petitioner was initially appointed as Laboratory
Assistant for a period of 29 days on ad-hoc basis from 7.7.1994
to 4.8.1994. He was thereafter continued in service by similar
2 of 6
jdk 3 3.cwp-8738.16.j.doc
orders of 29 days by giving breaks in between two spells of
appointment. Last order was issued on 16.3.1995 and was
followed upto 13.4.1995. As the petitioner's service was not
continued, he approached the Labour Court at Kolhapur under
Section 28 of the Maharashtra Recognition of Unfair Labour
Practices Act, 1971 by filing ULP No. 140 of 1995 on 27.6.1995.
The Labour Court granted him exparte interim relief on
27.6.1995. The petitioner had initially approached the Labour
Court in relation to his termination from service, however, while
his complaint was pending before the Labour Court, the
petitioner sought permission of the Labour Court to amend his
ULP Complaint to seek regularization of his service in view of
G.R. dated 8.3.1999. His ULP Complaint was dismissed by
Labour Court on 15.3.2012. Thereafter the petitioner
approached the Industrial Court by filing Revision Application
(ULP) No. 44 of 2012 and also sought interim relief. On account
of interim relief granted by the Industrial Court by order dated
2.4.2012, the petitioner continued in service. In the meanwhile,
the petitioner also preferred Original Application before the
Maharashtra Administrative Tribunal, Mumbai Bench.
Thereafter the petitioner withdrew the revision application from
3 of 6
jdk 4 3.cwp-8738.16.j.doc
the Industrial Court on 7.6.2016.
5 There are two issues in this matter. The first is that
the petitioner is seeking regularization of service from 1999 in
view of G.R. dated 8.3.1999 and the Original Application was
preferred on 15.1.2015 seeking regularization of service. The
petitioner has not made any prayer for condonation of delay in
preferring the Original Application. The Tribunal came to the
conclusion that the cause of action arose in 1999 as the
petitioner claimed regularization from 1999, however, as the
Original Application was filed on 15.1.2015, there was
inordinate delay and laches. The second issue is that the
petitioner had approached the Labour Court with the prayer for
regularization of service. The said ULP complaint was dismissed
by the Labour Court. Therefore, one Court has looked into the
grievance of the petitioner and thereafter found no merit
therein and has dismissed the ULP complaint. In such case, it
would not have been permissible for the Tribunal to take an
entirely different view.
6 The learned counsel for the petitioner submitted that
4 of 6
jdk 5 3.cwp-8738.16.j.doc
other persons who are similarly situated, have got the relief of
regularization of service from the Labour Court. As far as this
aspect is concerned, it is seen that even though the petitioner
approached the Tribunal by preferring Original Application on
15.1.2015 for regularization of service from 8.3.1999, he had
not sought for condonation of delay. In view of the fact that
there was delay of almost 16 years in approaching the Tribunal,
the least the petitioner should have done is made a prayer for
condonation of delay. Just stating that regularization of
services is a continuous cause of action is not enough. In fact,
the Tribunal has categorically observed that the petitioner
should have been forthcoming and in all fairness sought
condonation of delay. Such is not the case of the other
employees, thus, it cannot be said that the case of the other
employees and that of the petitioner is similar.
7 The Tribunal has taken into consideration the aspect
of delay as well as the order of the Labour Court dismissing the
ULP of the petitioner wherein the very same prayer had been
made by the petitioner for regularization of service and
thereafter dismissed the Original Application. Looking to the
5 of 6
jdk 6 3.cwp-8738.16.j.doc
facts and circumstances of this case, no interference is called
for. Petition is dismissed. Rule is discharged.
[DR.SHALINI PHANSALKAR-JOSHI, J.] [SMT.V.K.TAHILRAMANI, J.]
kandarkar
6 of 6
