Bombay High Court
The Chief Engineer, Irrigation ... vs Rakesh Namdeorao Lanjewar on 13 June, 2017
Bench: I.K. Jain
WP 4593.08.odt 1
IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY
NAGPUR BENCH : NAGPUR
WRIT PETITION NO.4593 OF 2008
1] The Chief Engineer,
Irrigation Department,
Mantralaya, Mumbai-32.
2] The Superintending Engineer &
Administrator, Command Area,
Development Authority,
Vainganga Nagar, Nagpur.
3] The Project Officer,
Soil & Water Management,
Vainganga Nagar, Ajni,
Nagpur. .. PETITIONERS
.. VERSUS ..
Rakesh Namdeorao Lanjewar,
R/o. Ramtek, Distt. Nagpur,
C/o. Taj Gents Parlour, Near
Nagar Parishad, Ramtek,
District-Nagpur. .. RESPONDENT
..........
None for petitioners-state,
None for respondent.
..........
CORAM : KUM. INDIRA JAIN, J.
DATED : JUNE 13, 2017.
ORAL JUDGMENT
This petition takes an exception to the judgment
and order dated 22.2.2007 passed by the Industrial Court,
Nagpur in Complaint (ULP) No.438/2001.
2] The facts giving rise to the petition may be stated,
in brief, as under :
On 1.1.1980, respondent came to be appointed as
an unskilled heavy labourer on daily wages. After
completion of five years service, he was brought on CRTE
from 1.1.1985 to the category of unskilled heavy labourer.
He was denied to join his duties as an unskilled labourer.
He, therefore, filed complaint before the Industrial Court to
bring him on CRTE from 1.1.1985 as a driver with all
consequential benefits. The said complaint was partly
allowed by the Industrial Court, vide order dated 22.2.2007.
Being aggrieved thereof, State of Maharashtra has preferred
this petition.
3] It appears from the perusal of record that
Government of Maharashtra has passed the resolution dated
27.09.1988 and brought respondent on CRTE from 1.1.1985
as a labour in unskilled category. The communication dated
22.9.1988 was received by respondent on 2.12.1988.
Respondent recorded his protest and made a grievance to
the petitioners that he is working as driver, therefore, he
should have been brought on CRTE as a driver. He also
claimed pay-scale for the work done by him as a driver. On
17.3.2001, respondent was directed by petitioners to submit
his joining report on the post of unskilled labour though he
was brought in skilled category and was on the post of
driver.
4] It is not in dispute that Kalelkar Award is applicable
to the parties. Respondent categorically stated that he
completed 240 days continuous service in every year during
the period of his service. There is amble evidence to show
that he was working on the post of driver. The evidence of
respondent has remained unshaken and, therefore,
Industrial Court held that complainant ought to have been
brought in the category of skilled labour on CRTE.
5] Besides the oral evidence vide Exh.33 clearly
indicated that respondent was working as driver. Petitioner
no.2-Superintending Engineer issued a communication
dated 14.7.1993 to the Chief Engineer and Joint Secretary
recommending the name of respondent as a driver. These
established facts remained unshattered.
6] Based on oral and documentary evidence,
Industrial Court came to the conclusion that by not bringing
respondent on CRTE as skilled labour, employers have
committed an unfair labour practice under Item 9 of
Schedule IV of the Act.
7] This court on scrutiny of the evidence and material
finds that impugned order is based on proper appreciation of
evidence. No fault can be found with the reasonings
recorded by the court below. Writ Petition therefore
deserves to be dismissed.
8] Writ Petition No.4593 of 2008 stands dismissed.
No order to costs.
(Kum. Indira Jain, J.)
Gulande, PA
