Bombay High Court
Kinwat Muncipal Council vs Vilas Kachru & Another on 13 July, 2017
Bench: R.V. Ghuge
1
IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE OF BOMBAY
BENCH AT AURANGABAD
WRIT PETITION NO. 4285 OF 1994
Kinwat Municipal Council, Kinwat,
Through its Chief Officer,
Post : Kinwat, Dist : Nanded. ...Petitioner.
Versus
1. Vilas Kachru Paralkar,
Age : 28 years, Occ : Nil,
R/o. Kinwat, Tal : Kinwat,
Dist : Nanded.
2. Industrial Court, Jalna,
At & Post : Jalna. ...Respondents.
Advocate for Respondent No. 1 : Shri B.B. Bhise
h/f. Shri D.J. Choudhary.
CORAM : RAVINDRA V. GHUGE, J.
Dated : 13th July, 2017
ORAL JUDGMENT :
1. Heard Shri D.J. Choudhary, learned advocate for
respondent No. 1. Respondent No. 2 being the Industrial Court
is not a necessary party and stands deleted from the
proceedings.
2. None for the petitioner.
3. Rather than dismissing the petition in default, I deem it
appropriate to decide the same on its own merits. I have gone
through the grounds raised by the petitioner and the record
available.
4. Respondent No. 1/workman preferred Complaint (ULP)
No. 360/1993, before the Labour Court alleging his wrongful
termination. By order dated 06/04/1994, the ex-parte ad-
interim protection, granted by the Labour Court on
20/10/1993, was vacated. The respondent/workman
approached the Industrial Court in Revision (ULP) No.
196/1994. By judgment dated 25/08/1994, the Revision
Petition was allowed by setting aside the order of the Labour
Court dated 06/04/1994 and by way of interim relief, the
petitioner/Municipal Council was directed to reinstate the
workman in service on the same earlier service conditions and
continue him till the disposal of the complaint.
5. The petitioner/Municipal Council approached this Court
in this petition which was admitted on 04th April, 1997 and
interim relief in the nature of "Status quo as on today" was
granted.
6. The petitioner has placed reliance upon the order passed
by the Hon'ble Supreme Court on 18/08/1994 in SLP (Civil)
Nos. 4658/1993 and 5717/1993, in the matter of Gram Sewak
Prashikshan Kendra Versus The Workman Employed under
them, represented by the Manjri Farm Kamgar Union and
others.
7. The Hon'ble Apex Court, considering the matters of such
nature where workers are working in a seasonal employment or
in temporary employment, has held that they would not acquire
a right to seek permanency or absorption unless there are
vacant posts.
8. It is obvious that the litigating sides are before this Court
on the interlocutory order passed by the Labour Court. This
Court has directed status quo to be maintained since 04th April,
1997.
9. Considering the same, I deem it proper to dispose of this
petition by continuing the interim relief dated 04/04/1997, up
to 28/02/2018, with the direction to the Labour Court to decide
the said complaint on/or before 28/02/2018, if not already
decided. Needless to state, the order dated 04/04/1997, passed
by this Court would merge in the final order of the Labour
Court. It goes without saying that if the Labour Court has
already decided the complaint finally, this order would lose it's
efficacy.
10. Rule is made absolute in terms of the interim order and
on the above terms.
( RAVINDRA V. GHUGE, J. )
S.P.C.
