Amravati Municipal Corporation, ... vs Jayanand Mahadev Dhavane And ...
2018 Latest Caselaw 106 Bom

                                       1                                                                wp7005.17

                   IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY
                             NAGPUR BENCH : NAGPUR

                            WRIT PETITION NO.7005/2017

Amravati Municipal Corporation, 
Amravati, through its Commissioner, 
Amravati.                                                                                 ..Petitioner.

     ..Vs..

1.   Jayanand Mahadev Dhavane,
     aged about 35 Yrs., Occu. Service, 
     R/o Ambavihar, Amravati. 

2.   Sureshsing Shankarsing Rathod,
     aged about 45 Yrs., Occu. Service, 
     R/o Namuna Galli No.2, Amravati. 

3.   Sudhir Devidas Fuke,
     aged about 38 Yrs., Occu. Service, 
     R/o Ashok Nagar, Amravati.

4.   Pramod Jaising Gahalod,
     aged about 38 Yrs., Occu. Service, 
     R/o Moti Nagar, Amravati.

5.   Nilesh Marotrao Mande,
     aged about 36 Yrs., Occu. Service, 
     R/o Frezarpura, Siddharth Chowk, 
     Amravati.

6.   Subhash Thavarya Chavhan,
     aged about 38 Yrs., Occu. Service, 
     R/o Kastura Mogra, Amravati. 

7.   Shaikh Sarafraj Mohmmad Yusuf,
     aged about 36 Yrs., Occu. Service, 
     R/o Namuna Galli No.4, Amravati. 

8.   Kevalsingh Gopalsingh Thakur,
     aged about 47 Yrs., Occu. Service, 
     R/o Mahendra Colony, Amravati. 



        ::: Uploaded on - 12/01/2018                                 ::: Downloaded on - 13/01/2018 00:52:20 :::
                                                                                   2                                                                wp7005.17

9.          Vijay Harishchandra Mhaske,
            aged about 30 Yrs., Occu. Service, 
            R/o Shobha Nagar, Amravati.                                                                                                            ..Respondents.
  - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - 
           Shri A.P. Kalmegh, Advocate for the petitioner. 
           Shri S.G. Jagtap, Advocate for respondent Nos.1, 3 to 6.
- - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - 


                                                                 CORAM :  Z.A. HAQ, J.

                                                                 DATE  :     5.1.2018.
                                                        

ORAL JUDGMENT

1. Heard Shri A.P. Kalmegh, Advocate for the petitioner and Shri S.G.

Jagtap, Advocate for respondent Nos.1, 3 to 6.

2. Rule. Rule made returnable forthwith.

3. The petitioner / employer has challenged the interim order passed

by the Industrial Court allowing the application (Exh. U-8) filed by the

respondents / employees under Section 30(2) of the Maharashtra Recognition

of Trade Unions and Prevention of Unfair Labour Practices Act, 1971 and

directing the employer to provide work as well as muster to the respondents

until further orders.

4. The submission on behalf of the employer is that the respondents /

employees were appointed / engaged without following prescribed procedure

but as they had been engaged by the employer for considerable time a

resolution is passed by the Municipal Corporation (employer) that the

3 wp7005.17

respondents / employees will be engaged through a contractor / an agency so

that the respondents / employees do not claim permanency / regularization.

The respondents / employees relied on resolution No.113 passed by

the Standing Committee of Municipal Corporation on 18 th February, 2015 by

which it was resolved that the respondents / employees should be continued

and permanency be conferred on them.

Be that as it may, at this stage, the rival contentions are not required

to be considered as the matter is pending before the Industrial Court.

5. There is no dispute that the petitioner / employer requires some

employees to perform the duties which are now being performed by the

respondents / employees. The only apprehension of the employer is that if the

respondents / employees are continued, they may claim benefit of it in the

proceedings initiated by them before the Industrial Court for regularization of

their services.

6. Considering the facts of the case, I am not inclined to interfere with

the impugned order passed by the Industrial Court, however, it is clarified that

the respondents / employees will not be entitled to claim any benefit of the fact

that they are now employed / engaged as per the interim order passed by the

Industrial Court. With the above clarification, the writ petition is disposed. In

the circumstances, the parties to bear their own costs.

JUDGE Tambaskar.