Bombay High Court
Dinkar Daulat Bagul vs Chief Officer, Nagarpalika, ... on 10 March, 2017
Bench: R.V. Ghuge
WP/2511/1998
1
IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE OF BOMBAY
BENCH AT AURANGABAD
WRIT PETITION NO. 2511 OF 1998
Dinkar Daulat Bagul,
Age 29 years, Occ. Service
R/o Shramjivi Mill Kamgar
Society, Market Yard,
Old Vadjai Road, Dhule. ..Petitioner
Versus
Chief Officer,
Nagarpalika, Dhule. ..Respondent
...
Advocate for Petitioner : Shri Dnyaneshwar Pawar
h/f Shri K.C.Sant
Advocate for Respondent : Shri S.P.Shah
...
CORAM : RAVINDRA V. GHUGE, J.
Dated: March 10, 2017
...
ORAL JUDGMENT:-
1. The petitioner is aggrieved by the judgment of the Industrial
Court dated 7.12.1995, by which, though his Complaint (ULP) No.57
of 1992 has been allowed, the Industrial Court has inadvertently
treated the petitioner as a Peon and granted him the benefits of a
Peon when he was actually working as a Clerk.
2. I have considered the submissions of the learned Advocates for
the respective sides. Shri Shah strenuously supports the impugned
judgment dated 7.12.1995. He contends that if the Industrial Court
has inadvertently treated the petitioner as a Peon, he should have
WP/2511/1998
immediately made an application for seeking correction in the
judgment. Rather than filing this petition, he could have moved the
Industrial Court so that the Industrial Court would have gone through
the record and would have corrected it's order if at all the error had
occurred.
3. With the assistance of the learned Advocates, I have perused
the record. In paragraph No.3A of the Complaint before the
Industrial Court, the petitioner has categorically stated that he was
working as a Clerk. The oral and documentary evidence placed on
record is with regard to his nature of duties as a Clerk. It appears
that the Industrial Court, which was dealing with Complaint (ULP)
Nos. 64 65 and 66 of 1992, found that these three complainants were
working as Peons. Complaint (ULP) NO.67 of 1992 filed by the
petitioner could have been decided separately. As the said complaint
was also taken up together along with the three complaints of Peon,
the Industrial Court felt that all these complainants were working as
Peons.
4. In the light of the above, this petition is partly allowed. Since
it appears that the petitioner was working as a Clerk, it would be
appropriate to direct the respondent to fairly reconsider and review
it's records and if the records of the respondent indicate that on the
date of filing of the Complaint 29.1.1992 that the petitioner was
WP/2511/1998
working as a Clerk, it shall accordingly correct its record and shall
treat the petitioner as a Clerk keeping in view that the respondent is
said to have implemented the judgment delivered by the Industrial
Court in relation to all the four complainants and has not challenged
the direction of permanency. He would then be entitled to
appropriate service benefits.
5. Rule is made partly absolute in the above terms.
( RAVINDRA V. GHUGE, J. )
...
akl/d
