Bombay High Court
Shri. Ravindra Ramakant Barbhai vs The Assistant Director, ... on 6 June, 2017
Bench: V.K. Tahilramani
Rane * 1/6 * WP-8631-2016
6.6.2017
IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY
CIVIL APPELLATE JURISDICTION
WRIT PETITION NO. 8631 OF 2016
Shri. Ravindra Ramakant Barbhai .....Petitioner
V/s.
The Assistant Director, Archeology
Department and Ors. ......Respondents
Mr. Atul P. Vanarse, Advocate for the petitioner.
Mr. Vishal Thadani, AGP for State-respondents no.1 to 3.
CORAM :- SMT. V.K. TAHILRAMANI, &
SANDEEP K. SHINDE, JJ.
DATED :- 6 th June, 2017.
ORAL JUDGMENT : (Per :- SANDEEP K. SHINDE, J)
1). Heard both sides.
2). Rule. Rule made returnable forthwith. Heard
finally by consent.
3). This petition under Article 226 and 227 of the
Constitution of India is preferred by the Original Applicant in
O.A. No. 707 of 2011 against the order dated 2 nd March, 2015
Rane * 2/6 * WP-8631-2016
6.6.2017
whereby the Administrative Tribunal dismissed the said O.A.
4). The facts giving rise to this petition to be stated in
short are as under :-
. The petitioner holds a Diploma in Arts and was
initially appointed on purely temporary basis as a
Photographer on 30th November, 1993 through Employment
Exchange. That from 30th November, 1993 till 30th May,
1994 he worked as a Photographer with certain breaks in his
service, particulars whereof are stated in the petition.
5). The Assistant Director (Archeology), respondent
terminated his services, vide order dated 31 st July, 1997,
which prompted him to file the proceedings before the Labour
Court, complaining unfair labour practice under the
provisions and items, of Maharashtra Recognition of Trade
Unions and Prevention of Unfair Labour Practices Act
("MRTU & PULP Act" for short). It appears, Labour Court at
interim stage, directed the respondents to appoint the
petitioner for a period of 6 months or till the availability of
Candidate selected by the Selection Board whichever event
occurs earlier. Though vide order dated 22 nd June, 1998 the
Rane * 3/6 * WP-8631-2016
6.6.2017
petitioner's service was continued but was not granted the
status of 'permanency'. The petitioner therefore filed another
complaint under the MRTU & PULP Act, bearing Complaint
No. 334 of 1999 before the Industrial Court, Pune, seeking
the relief of permanency. Before the Industrial Court, he
claimed permanency on the ground that he had completed
240 days of continuous service and asserted his claim of
permanency on the basis of G.R. dated 8 th March, 1999
issued by the respondents. His service was protected initially
by granting interim relief. The Learned Member, Industrial
Court, however, dismissed his complaint by order dated 9 th
August, 2002 and vacated the interim relief granted earlier.
This order was carried in High Court by filing Writ Petition
No. 2341 of 2003. On 23rd June, 2004 the Writ Petition was
allowed to be withdrawn as dismissed. Thereafter, the
petitioner herein filed O.A. No. 335 of 2005 before the
Maharashtra Administrative Tribunal but the same was
permitted to be withdrawn by the Division Bench of the
Tribunal by order dated 7th December, 2005. It is a matter of
record that, against the order dated 23 rd June, 2004 passed
Rane * 4/6 * WP-8631-2016
6.6.2017
in Writ Petition No. 2341 of 2003 a Letters Patent Appeal
(St) No. 12054 of 2010 was preferred but the Appeal was
dismissed for default on 9th September, 2010. An application
was moved to recall the order dated 9th September, 2010,
however, the same was also withdrawn on 23 rd February,
2012. It is a matter of record that, it is only in the year
August, 2011 the petitioner had filed, O.A. No. 707 of 2011
and prayed that the respondents be directed to appoint the
petitioner as a Photographer in pursuance to G.R. dated 8 th
August, 1999 with all other consequential service benefits.
6). It may be stated that the applicant had also relied
upon cases of his other employees, particularly that, of one
Mr. Deshpande to whom the benefit of the said G.R. was
extended.
7). The O.A. was opposed by the respondent, State
contending that the Maharashtra Administrative Tribunal
cannot scrutinise and/or sit in Appeal over the orders passed
by Industrial/Labour Courts. The respondent further
contended that, the finding recorded by the Labour
Court/Industrial Court and in particular when the order of
Rane * 5/6 * WP-8631-2016
6.6.2017
the Industrial Court had attained finality, as the writ petition
directed against the said order was permitted to be
withdrawn by the High Court as dismissed.
8). The Tribunal accepted the contention of the State
and recorded a finding that the petitioner could not have
invoked the jurisdiction of the Tribunal under Section 19 of
the Administrative Tribunals Act, 1985 after having lost the
battle seeking regularisation of his service before the
Industrial/Labour Court. In view of this finding, the original
application was dismissed against which the present writ
petition was preferred by the petitioner.
9). The Learned Counsel for the petitioner, reiterated
the facts of the case but was unable to answer as to how the
Tribunal could re-open or review or re-appreciate the
findings recorded by the Courts of competent jurisdiction on
the same issue which had attained finality. The facts of the
case disclosed that, the findings of the Industrial Court were
assailed in the Writ Petition before High Court but petition
was withdrawn.
10). That considering the facts as aforesaid, that for
Rane * 6/6 * WP-8631-2016
6.6.2017
regularisation of the services, the petitioner had exhausted
all the remedies before the other forums, in our opinion, the
Tribunal committed no error of jurisdiction or otherwise.
The order impugned herein requires no interference. In view
of this fact, Writ Petition is dismissed. Rule is discharged,
with no order as to costs.
(SANDEEP K. SHINDE, J) (SMT. V.K. TAHILRAMANI, J)
