Bombay High Court
Shrirampur Municipal Council ... vs Mangesh Sahebrao Bagul on 10 June, 2021
Bench: R. G. Avachat
1 wp-5501-2016.doc
IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE OF BOMBAY
BENCH AT AURANGABAD
WRIT PETITION NO. 5501 OF 2016
Shrirampur Municipal Council,
Shrirampur, Through its Chief Officer ... Petitioner
(Orig.Respondent)
Versus
Mangesh s/o Sahebrao Bagul
Age: 36 years, Occu: Labourer,
R/o. Laxminarayan Nagar, Sonawane Wasti,
Gondhavani Road, Ward No.1,
Shrirampur, Dist. Ahmednagar ... Respondent
(Orig. Complainant)
....
Shri V. S. Bedre, Advocate for the petitioner
Shri P. V. Barde, Advocate for the respondent
....
CORAM : R. G. AVACHAT, J.
RESERVED ON : 17th FEBRUARY, 2021
PRONOUNCED ON : 10th JUNE, 2021
O R D E R :-
. The challenge in this writ petition is to the judgment and
order dated 21.10.2015, passed by the Member, Industrial Court,
Ahmednagar in Complaint (ULP) No.66 of 2012. By the impugned
judgment and order, the petitioner - Shrirampur Municipal Council
has been directed to appoint the respondent (complainant) as a
Sweeper.
1 of 8
2 wp-5501-2016.doc
2. The facts leading to the present petition are as under:-
Smt. Hirabai, mother of the respondent (complainant)
was serving as a Sweeper with the petitioner - Municipal Council.
She retired on superannuation on 31.05.2012. In view of
recommendations of Lad & Barve committee, one of the children of
the retired Sweeper is entitle to be appointed to the post of Sweeper.
The respondent belongs to the Scheduled Caste. He read upto 9 th
standard. He is otherwise eligible for appointment to the post of the
Sweeper. The respondent, therefore, made an application to the
petitioner - Municipal Council, seeking appointment as a Sweeper.
His request was turned down. The respondent, therefore, preferred
Complaint (ULP) No.62 of 2012. The learned Member, Industrial
Court, Ahmednagar, allowed the same. Hence, the petition.
3. Heard.
Shri V. S. Bedre, learned Advocate for the petitioner -
Municipal Council, would submit that there was no relationship as
the employer and the employee between the petitioner and the
respondent. The Complaint (ULP) was therefore not maintainable.
The learned Advocate would further submit that the mother of the
2 of 8
3 wp-5501-2016.doc
respondent was working on temporary post. As per the revised
staffing pattern, the post of a Sweeper held by her, has been
abolished. In view of the guidelines issued in regard to the
appointment as per the recommendations of Lad & Barve committee,
the respondent was not entitled for appointment. Smt. Hirabai's
other children may compete with the claim raised by the respondent.
According to the learned Advocate, the impugned judgment and
order is therefore, not sustainable. He, ultimately, urged for allowing
the writ petition.
4. Shri P. V. Barde, learned Advocate for the respondent,
would on the other hand, submit that Smt. Hirabai was a permanent
employee. She retired on superannuation, after having put in
number of years of service. In view of the recommendations of Lad &
Barve committee, the respondent is entitled for appointment to the
post of Sweeper. According to the learned Advocate, no interference
with the impugned order is therefore called for.
5. Admittedly, Smt. Hirabai - mother of the respondent,
had been serving as a Sweeper with the petitioner - Municipal
Council. She retired on superannuation in May - 2012. Lad & Barve
committee had recommended for giving an appointment to one, who
3 of 8
4 wp-5501-2016.doc
would be the Class-I heirs of a retired Class-IV employee,
particularly, a Sweeper. The recommendations have been accepted
by the State of Maharashtra. Those recommendations have also been
applicable to the Municipal Administrations in the State. So far as
regards question of maintainability of the complaint is concerned,
this Court, vide judgment and order dated 06.01.2016, in Writ
Petition No.4360 of 2013 (Shaikh Anwar Shaikh Lala vs Mahatma
Phule Krishi Vidyapeeth and others), has observed thus:
"8. He relies upon the observations of this Court in the
matter of Ahmednagar Municipal Corporation Vs.
Madhukar Chandrabhan Galphade and others - Writ
Petition No.938 of 2008, decided on 18.3.2009, in
support of his case. Paragraph No.4 of the said judgment
reads as under:-
"4. Petitioner has also raised objection to the
entertainability of the complaint on the ground that
there is no relationship of employer and employee
between the parties and as such the industrial court
has no jurisdiction to entertain the complaint. It is
to be noted that the complainant is seeking relief in
respect of employment under the award reached
between the employer and the union of the
employees. The benefits are conferred on the
employee in respect of securing employment for the
heirs of such retiring employees. The complainant as
such can ask for the benefits accruable to his father
on the strength of an award reached between the
employer and the employee who was admittedly an
employee of the petitioner - Municipal Council.
Objection raised in respect of entertainability of the
complaint therefore does not call for any
4 of 8
5 wp-5501-2016.doc
consideration. There is no merit in the petition.
Petition therefore stands rejected summarily."
9. He then places reliance upon the conclusions of this
Court, dated 3.3.2015 in the matter of Udgir Municipal
Council Vs. The State of Maharashtra and others - Writ
Petition No.5507 of 2014, wherein this Court, while
considering a similar situation has concluded in
paragraph No.9 as follows:-
"9. So far as appointment claimed by respondent
No.3 as per recommendations of Lad committee is
concerned, in its stricter sense, it cannot be
construed as compassionate appointment. As per the
Government Resolution dated 19.10.2004, Exh.C,
legal heirs of an employee, who was working as
Safai Kamgar or Scavengers, are entitled for
appointment as per recommendations of Lad
Committee. It is also clear from the contents of said
Resolution that such appointment can be made after
retirement of such employee who was working as
Safai Kamgar or Scavenger. Respondent No.3,
certainly is an affected person, approached the
Industrial Court with a grievance that because of
unfair labour practice adopted by the employer, he
was deprived of getting appointment on
compassionate ground, though is entitled under the
above stated Government Resolution based upon
recommendations of Lad Committee. In view of the
Government Resolution, as referred in the
judgment, the legal heirs of employee is entitled for
compassionate appointment. Thus, respondent No.3
steps in the shoes of his father and there is notional
extension of relationship between the petitioner and
respondent No.3 in this backdrop. Learned counsel
for the petitioner has placed his reliance on the
above mentioned cases which are altogether on
different point and thus cannot be made applicable
to the facts and circumstances of the present case.
Those cases are on the point of denial of employee
employer relationship on usual ground. However,
5 of 8
6 wp-5501-2016.doc
the facts of the present case are peculiar and
moreover the Division bench of this Court had also
granted liberty to respondent No.3 to approach the
Industrial Court for redressal of his grievances. In
my considered opinion, the complaint is therefore,
maintainable before the Industrial Court and the
learned Member, Industrial Court has rightly
entertained the same."
The complaint has been held to be maintainable.
6. The facts of the present case would indicate that the son
of a retired Class-IV employee of the petitioner - Municipal Council,
is seeking enforcement of right to seek employment in view of the
recommendations of Lad & Barve committee, which have been
accepted by the State and made applicable to the Municipal
Administrations in the State of Maharashtra, as well. On the question
of merit of the matter, it is to be stated that the mother of the
respondent was a Class-IV employee. True, she was made permanent
on the post of Sweeper pursuant to the order passed by the
Labour/Industrial Court. Once she came to be appointment as a
Sweeper, there could remain no distinction inter-se, the Sweepers,
particularly, one appointed by virtue of the Court order and the other
on following due procedure of recruitment. It is true that by virtue of
order dated 24.05.2005 issued by the Director of Municipal
Administration, on retirement of an employee holding a temporary
6 of 8
7 wp-5501-2016.doc
post, such post is to be abolished. It may also be true that the
petitioner - Municipal Council may not have Sweeper's post in its
Water Supply Department, with which the respondent's mother was
serving as a Sweeper. Once the recommendations of Lad & Barve
committee have been accepted by the State and made applicable to
all the Municipal Councils in the State, the petitioner - Municipal
Council is bound by the same and is therefore under obligation to
provide the respondent, if he is otherwise eligible, an employment
on the post of a Sweeper on account of retirement of his mother on
Class-IV post (Sweeper). It is reiterated that no distinction can be
made so far as regards grant of appointment by virtue of succession
to Class-IV employee appointed pursuant to the order of the Court,
and who has been duly appointed. Admittedly, the mother of the
respondent was made permanent by virtue of the order passed by
the Labour/Industrial Court. The said order attained finality. She
retired on superannuation after having put in not less than 20 years
of service. The respondent being her son, became eligible for
appointment on Class-IV post by virtue of recommendations of Lad &
Barve committee. The Industrial Court has therefore rightly allowed
the complaint.
7 of 8
8 wp-5501-2016.doc
7. In the facts and circumstances of the case, no
interference is called for with the impugned order. The petition fails
and is therefore, dismissed.
[ R. G. AVACHAT, J. ]
SMS
8 of 8
