Bombay High Court
Zilla Parishad Yavatmal Through ... vs Pradip Sadashiv Sawangikar And 3 ... on 6 November, 2017
Bench: Z.A. Haq
wp1773of2015.odt 1/5
IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY
NAGPUR BENCH : NAGPUR.
Writ Petition NO. 1773 OF 2015
PETITIONER: Zilla Parishad Yavatmal,
through its Chief Executive Officer,
Zilla Parishad, Yavatmal.
-VERSUS-
RESPONDENTS: 1. Pradip Sadashiv Sawangikar,
Aged about 56 years, Occu: Service,
R/o Ganesh Ward, Pusad, Tq. Pusad,
Dist. Yavatmal.
2. Parmeshwar Vitthal Gudhatwar,
Aged about 62 years, Occu: Service
R/o Subhash Ward, Pusad Tq. Pusad,
Dist. Yavatmal.
3. The Superintendent,
Daru Bandi Va Parachar Vibhag Yavatmal.
4. Vyasanmukti Va Pracharadhikari Gat (B) Zilla
Parishad, Yavatmal.
Shri. Rahul Tajne, Advocate for the petitioner.
CORAM: Z.A. Haq, J.
DATED: 06.11.2017.
Oral Judgment
1. Heard. Though served, there is no appearance on behalf of
the respondents.
::: Uploaded on - 14/11/2017 ::: Downloaded on - 15/11/2017 00:39:02 :::
wp1773of2015.odt 2/5
2. Rule. Rule made returnable forthwith.
3. The petitioner (Zilla Parishad), has challenged the order
passed by the Industrial Court, allowing the complaint filed by the
respondents nos. 1 and 2 under Section 28 read with items 5, 6 and 9
of Scheduled-IV of the Maharashtra Recognition of Trade Unions and
Prevention of Unfair Labour Practices Act, 1971. By the impugned
order, the Industrial Court has upheld the claim of the respondent
Nos. 1 and 2 that they had been working continuously as employees of
Zilla Parishad and that the action of Zilla Parishad in continuing them
on daily wages for considerably long time amounted to unfair labour
practice. The Industrial Court directed the Zilla Parishad and present
respondents No.3 and 4 to regularize the services of the complainants
(present respondent No.1 and 2) and to grant them all monetary
benefits from the date of the order.
4. The petitioner as well as the respondent Nos. 3 and 4
(who were non-applicants before the Industrial Court) failed to appear
and oppose the claim of the complainants. The Industrial Court relied
on the evidence brought on record by the complainants and allowed
the complaint. Now, the contention of the petitioner-Zilla Parishad is
::: Uploaded on - 14/11/2017 ::: Downloaded on - 15/11/2017 00:39:02 :::
wp1773of2015.odt 3/5
that the complainant had made a false claim before the Industrial
Court. The learned Advocate for the petitioner has pointed out that
though the respondent no.1 claims that he was working since last 35
years prior to the filing of the complaint, his age is shown as 46 years
in the complaint and it is not possible that he was employed at the age
of 11 years. It is submitted that the complainants pleaded specific case
that they were appointed under a written order however, copy of such
order was not placed on record before the Industrial Court.
5. The failure on the part of the Zilla Parishad to participate
in the proceedings, as usual, is attributed to the negligence of its
employee / employees who were responsible to look after the Court
proceedings. A specific statement is made, on instructions, that Zilla
Parishad would initiate enquiry against that those employee/
employees who had been negligent in attending the proceedings
before the Industrial Court. It is submitted that enquiry would be
initiated within 15 days and the report of it would be placed on record
before the Industrial Court till 5th May, 2018.
6. Accepting the submission made on behalf of the petitioner-
Zilla Parishad that enquiry would be conducted against erring
::: Uploaded on - 14/11/2017 ::: Downloaded on - 15/11/2017 00:39:02 :::
wp1773of2015.odt 4/5
employee /employees who were negligent in attending the Court
proceedings and considering the facts of the case, in my view, the
following order would subserve the ends of justice.
ORDER
1) The impugned order is set aside.
2) The matter is remitted to the Industrial Court, Bench at
Yavatmal for deciding the complaint afresh.
3) The Zilla Parishad (petitioner) shall deposit Rs. 2,00,000/-
before the Industrial Court, Yavatmal within two months. On such
deposit, Rs. 1,00,000/- be given to each of the respondent Nos. 1 and
2 (complainants).
4) If this amount of Rs.2,00,000/- is not deposited within 2
months, the order passed by Industrial Court in complaint ULP No.
148/2005 on 6th October 2006 shall stand.
5) If the amount of Rs. 2,00,000/-, as directed is deposited within
2 months, the Industrial Court shall issue notice to the complainants
and shall dispose the complaint within six months from date of service
of notice on them.
6) As this order is passed relying on the specific assurance given
on behalf of the Zilla Parishad, Yavatmal that enquiry would be
wp1773of2015.odt 5/5
initiated against the erring employee/employees, if the report of
enquiry is not placed on record before Industrial Court within six
months i.e. till 05thMay, 2018, the Industrial Court shall report about it
to this Court, so that appropriate proceedings can be initiated against
the Chief Executive Officer, Zilla Parishad, Yavatmal.
Writ Petition is disposed in the above terms.
JUDGE
nandurkar
