Bombay High Court
Chief Executive Officer, Zilla ... vs Rashtriya Z.P. Wa Patbhandare ... on 10 August, 2017
Bench: A.S. Chandurkar
MCA-429-17 1/6
IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY
NAGPUR BENCH, NAGPUR.
MISC. CIVIL APPLICATION (REVIEW) NO.429 OF 2017
IN
WRIT PETITION NO.5583 OF 2015 (D)
1. Chief Executive Officer
Zilla Parishad Amravati
Tq. and Dist. Amravati.
2. The Executive Engineer,
Zilla Parishad Works Department,
Amravati, Tq. and Dist. Amravati.
3. The Executive Engineer,
Minor Irrigation, Zilla Parishad
Amravati Tq. & Dist. Amravati ... Applicants.
-vs-
1. Rashtriya Zilla Parishad wa
Patbhandare Kamgar Sanghatana,
Thr. its President Krishna Narayanrao Mahore,
R/o Namuna Galli, Amravati,
Tq. and Dist. Amravati.
2. Rural Development and Water
Conservation Department, Thr.
its Secretary, Mantralaya,
Mumbai 400 032. ... Non-applicants.
Shri S. D. Chopde, Advocate for applicants.
Shri N. R. Saboo, Advocate for non-applicant No.1.
Shri A. D. Sonak, Assistant Government Pleader for non-applicant No.2.
::: Uploaded on - 11/08/2017 ::: Downloaded on - 12/08/2017 02:14:39 :::
MCA-429-17 2/6
CORAM : A. S. CHANDURKAR, J.
DATE : AUGUST 10, 2017
Oral Judgment :
Admit.
Heard with consent of learned counsel for the parties.
By this application it is prayed that judgment dated 08/08/2016
in W.P.No.5583 of 2015 be reviewed. By said judgment, the order passed by
the Industrial Court dated 24/04/2015 allowing the complaint filed by
respondent No.1-Union was confirmed and it was declared that the
complainants were entitled to receive benefits of permanency under the
Kalelkar Settlement. It was also directed to bring the members of the Union
on C.R.T.E. from the date of completing five years of service. This relief was
granted with regard to four members.
2. Shri S. D. Chopde, learned counsel for the applicants-original
petitioners referred to the averments made in the review application and
submitted that after the writ petition was dismissed, the necessary service
records were verified for complying with the aforesaid order. According to
him, four members of the Union in whose favour relief was granted had
never worked with the Zilla Parishad and it was alleged that there was a
fraud played by those members in connivance with some officers of the Zilla
Parishad in preparing false documents. According to him, the documents
MCA-429-17 3/6
filed before the Industrial Court at Exhibits-22, 24, 25 and 29 were all the
fabricated documents. He urged that as these documents were taken into
consideration by the Industrial Court while granting relief and as these
documents indicate the picture otherwise, a case for reviewing the judgment
dated 08/08/2016 has been made out. According to him, by virtue of that
order, the said members would be entitled for such reliefs for which they are
not entitled for in law. He also submitted that a police complaint in that
regard was made on 07/11/2016 and said proceedings are pending. It was
therefore submitted that case for grant of review was made out.
3. Shri N. R. Saboo, learned counsel for original respondent No.1
opposed the application and submitted that the grounds as raised in the
review application were without any merit. The members of the Union in
fact worked at their respective places and after considering the entire
material on record, relief was granted to them. He submitted that the
present applicants did not contest the proceedings before the Industrial Court
diligently nor did they lead any evidence. He then referred to various
communications to indicate the fact that even otherwise, the said members
were entitled for relief. He therefore submitted that there was no error
apparent to invoke review jurisdiction.
Shri A. D. Sonak, learned Assistant Government Pleader appears
for non-applicant No.2.
MCA-429-17 4/6
4. On hearing the respective counsel and after perusing the
documents filed on record along with the review application, it can be prima
facie seen that the documents at Exhibits-22, 25, 27 and 28 as placed on
record contain different dates than the exhibited documents that were placed
before the Industrial Court. The aforesaid exhibited documents were also
taken into consideration by the Industrial Court by referring to the same in
paragraph 6 of its judgment. It is after considering said documents as well as
other documents on record that relief was granted to original complainants.
5. The documents at record page 97 is the copy of Exhibit-25
showing the date of birth of the complainant therein as 01/01/1969 while
document at record page 45 shows his date of birth as 01/02/1971.
Similarly document at record page 98 which is the extract of service-book
discloses the actual position and this is in variance with the same document
at page 46 of the record. The document at page 42 indicates the date of
birth of the complainant therein as 03/02/1976, while the name for service
purposes is entered on 30/08/1992 which indicates that his age was about
16 years. Similarly at page 48 the date of birth shown therein is 11/06/1975
and the name is enrolled on 27/07/1991. Similarly document at Exhibit-29
at record page 38 is shown to be issued by mustering clerk Shri Dinesh
Shende. Said Shri Dinesh Shende has filed an affidavit before the learned
Chief Judicial Magistrate, Amravati in criminal proceedings initiated by the
MCA-429-17 5/6
present applicants and he has stated that he had not signed that letter.
Similarly there is doubt also expressed with regard to the document dated
24/12/2004 at Exhibit-22.
I thus find that there is prima facie material available with the
applicants to indicate that the documents that were filed before the Industrial
Court are not without doubt.
6. Though it was submitted on behalf of the non-applicant No.1 that
these documents do not have any bearing while deciding the complaint as
there are other documents available on record that support their case, said
submission cannot be accepted. Once when it is prima facie found that there
are two sets of the same documents and said documents were part of record
before the Industrial Court, consideration of those documents was the basis
for granting relief. It cannot be said that despite these documents as pointed
out in the review application, on the basis of other documents, the same
conclusion would have been arrived at. I therefore find that a case has been
made out for exercising review jurisdiction in the light of the material placed
on record by the applicants. The proceedings in W.P. No.5583 of 2015
therefore deserve to be revived for being re-considered. Accordingly
judgment dated 08/08/2016 is reviewed and recalled. W.P. No.5583 of
2015 is restored to file for its adjudication on merits. Needless to observe
that observations made in this order are only for deciding the review
MCA-429-17 6/6
application.
Misc. Civil Application is allowed and disposed of. No costs.
JUDGE
Asmita
