Bombay High Court
Ashok S/O Ramchandra Gomase vs M.S.R.T.C. Thr. Its M.D. And Anr on 31 August, 2017
Bench: B.P. Dharmadhikari
lpa191.09 1
IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY
NAGPUR BENCH
LETTERS PATENT APPEAL NO. 191 OF 2009
IN
WRIT PETITION NO. 936 OF 2009
Ashok s/o Ramchandra Gomase,
aged about 57 years,
occupation - Service, r/o
ST Quarters, Ghat Road,
Nagpur. ... APPELLANT
Versus
1. Maharashtra State Road
Transport Corporation,
Maharashtra Wahatuk Bhavan,
Mumbai thr. its Managing
Director.
2. Maharashtra State Road
Transport Corporation,
Ganeshpeth, Nagpur through
its Divisional Controller. ... RESPONDENTS
.....
CORAM : B.P. DHARMADHIKARI &
ARUN D. UPADHYE, JJ.
AUGUST 31, 2017.
ORAL JUDGMENT : (PER B.P. DHARMADHIKARI, J.)
Nobody for the parties even today. There was no
appearance even on 24.08.2017.
2. The appellant filed ULP Complaint No. 531 of 2005
before the Industrial Court at Nagpur, under Section 28 read
with Schedule IV, items 5 & 9 of the Maharashtra Recognition
of Trade Unions and Prevention of Unfair Labour Practices Act,
1971 (hereinafter referred to as MRTU & PULP Act), and
questioned the order dated 07.10.2005, seeking to re-
categorize him.
3. It appears that in 1994, he passed promotional
examination and became Vehicle Examiner. By letter dated
10.11.2003, he sought re-categorization from that post to the
post of Assistant Traffic Inspector. The Deputy General
Manager of the respondents allowed this request and he was re-
categorized as Assistant Traffic Inspector vide letter dated
14.09.2004.
4. The learned member of Industrial Court has looked
into the controversy and found that the order of withdrawal of
said re-categorization was as per law. Hence, ULP Complaint
was dismissed.
5. The employee then approached the learned Single
in Writ Petition No. 936 of 2009. The learned Single Judge
found that necessary qualification for appointment to the post
of Assistant Traffic Inspector was a Graduate degree from a
recognized University and that post was a non-technical post.
The employee was working as a Vehicle Examiner on technical
side and hence in the absence of qualification, he was wrongly
given re-categorization and brought on non-technical side. The
provisions of (General Standing Orders) GSO 503 are looked
into by the learned Single Judge and action of the respondents
- employer has been found correct. The petition was,
therefore, dismissed in motion hearing on 15.04.2009.
6. It appears that till dismissal of petition, employee
was working as Assistant Traffic Inspector. In LPA, he sought
interim order. On 27.04.2009, while admitting the matter,
notice was issued on interim relief and made returnable in
vacation. In vacation, the counsel for the appellant was not
present and hence, the matter came to be adjourned beyond
vacation. On 15.06.2009, the Division Bench heard the
respective counsel on prayer for interim relief, took note of the
stand that the appellant was already relieved from that post,
but still granted interim relief in terms of prayer clause (A) of
the application. With the result, the appellant continues/
continued on re-categorized post.
7. When the complaint was filed in the year 2005, age
of the employee was 52 years. In Writ Petition, he has shown
his age to be 57 years. In LPA filed in the same year again age
is shown as 57 years. The appellant - employee, therefore, has
superannuated after reaching the age of 58 years somewhere
either in the year 2009 or 2010.
8. In this situation, as none of the parties are
appearing, in present facts, without laying down any precedent,
we make the rule absolute in terms of interim order dated
15.06.2009. Letters Patent Appeal is accordingly partly
allowed and disposed of. No order as to costs.
JUDGE JUDGE
******
*GS.
