Krishi Uttpanna Bazar Samiti ... vs Rajendra Chintaman Gangurde And ...
2017 Latest Caselaw 2732 Bom

                                         1

         IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE OF BOMBAY   
                     BENCH AT AURANGABAD

                        WRIT PETITION NO.1453 OF 2000

1.     Krishi Uttpanna Bazar Samiti, Dhule
       (Through Secretary, Bazar Samiti Dhule)

2.     The Sabhapati,
       Krishi Uttpanna Bazar Samiti, Dhule,
       Dhule                                             -- PETITIONERS 

VERSUS

1.     Rajendra Chintaman Gangurde,
       Age-Adult, Occu-Service,
       R/o Hamal Mapadi Plot,
       Near Guru Dutta Mandir, Dhule,

2.     The Member,
       Industrial Court, Nasik,

3.     The State of Maharashtra,                         -- RESPONDENTS 

Mr.B.R.Warma, Advocate for the petitioners. Mr.D.J.Patil h/f Mr.N.B.Suryawanshi, Advocate for respondent No.1. Mr.S.K.Tambe, AGP for respondent Nos. 2 and 3.

( CORAM : Ravindra V.Ghuge, J.)

DATE : 05/06/2017

ORAL JUDGMENT :

1. The petitioner/Establishment is aggrieved by the judgment

dated 27/05/1998 delivered by the Industrial Court, Nashik, by

which Complaint (ULP) No.660/1996 has been allowed and

khs/JUNE 2017/1453

respondent No.1/employee has been granted permanency as a Clerk

w.e.f. 01/01/1984 with all monetary benefits. Costs have also been

imposed.

2. It is informed that this Court, in a group of Writ petitions Nos.

2560/1997 to 2564/1997 with Writ Petition No.2567/1997 to

2569/1997 and 2577/1997, has dealt with an identical challenge

posed by the same petitioner herein. It is stated that this petition

was left out of the said group when this Court decided the said group

of petitions by judgment dated 15/12/2016.

3. Considering the contentions of the litigating sides, I find that

there are no circumstances to take a different view in this matter.

4. As such, this petition is partly allowed. The declaration of ULP

set out in Clause 1 and 2 of the order and the direction to pay costs

in clause 5 of the order, stand quashed and set aside. The directions

set out in clause Nos.3 and 4 of the impugned order stand modified

as under :-

[a] The petitioner shall submit a proposal in relation to the

respondent Rajendra Chintaman Gangurde, if not already submitted,

to the Director of Marketing, Pune within a period of 6 (six) weeks

khs/JUNE 2017/1453

from today.

[b] The concerned authority, after receipt of the said proposal,

shall consider the case of the respondent by keeping in view all such

claims of the other similarly situated workmen whose cases have

been decided by this Court by judgment dated 15/12/2016.

[c] The Director of Marketing, Pune who is represented through

the State in these matters shall decide the said proposal based on

the available vacant posts and shall accordingly grant regularization

from the date the said post has fallen vacant, within a period of 16

weeks thereafter.

(d) All such employees inclusive of this respondent would,

therefore, be granted deemed dates of regularization strictly on the

basis of their seniority and would be entitled to monetary benefits

accordingly.

(e) In the event the Director of Marketing finds it necessary to

create posts considering the quantum of work available and subject

to the Rules, he would be expected to do so as per rules.

(f) Needless to state, the above said proposal depends upon the

factum of employment of this respondent taking into consideration

whether the respondent is in employment today.

(g) The services of this respondent shall not be discontinued

merely on the ground that the proposal is pending.

khs/JUNE 2017/1453

5. Rule is made partly absolute in the above terms.

( Ravindra V.Ghuge, J.)

khs/JUNE 2017/1453