Bombay High Court
Pandurang S/O Gulabrao Battinwar vs Mah. State Road Transport ... on 14 October, 2021
Bench: A.S. Chandurkar, G. A. Sanap
1 LPA117.13 & LPA 146.13(J)
IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY
NAGPUR BENCH, NAGPUR.
LETTERS PATENT APPEAL NO.117/2013 IN
WRIT PETITION NO.368/2012(D)
AND
LETTERS PATENT APPEAL NO.146/2013 IN
WRIT PETITION NO.1179/2012(D)
------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
LETTERS PATENT APPEAL NO.117/2013
Pandurang s/o Gulabrao Battinwar (since dead through LRs)
1. Smt. Kalpana wd/o Pandurang Battinwar,
aged about 42 years.
2. Krushnakumar s/o Pandurang Battinwar,
aged about 21 years.
3. Ku. Rashmi d/o Pandurang Battinwar,
Aged about 19 years.
4. Ankit s/o Pandurang Battinwar,
Aged about 16 years, Minor, through natural guardian
Mother Smt. Kalpana wd/o Pandurang Battinwar.
All residents of Plot No.9, S.B.I.Colony,
Sneh Nagar, Wardha Road, Nagpur. ....APPELLANTS
...V E R S U S...
1. Maharashtra State Road Transport Corporation,
through its Works Manager, Central Workshop,
M.I.D.C. Hingna Road, Nagpur.
2. Member, Industrial Court,
Civil Lines, Nagpur. ... RESPONDENTS
::: Uploaded on - 14/10/2021 ::: Downloaded on - 15/10/2021 08:21:09 :::
2 LPA117.13 & LPA 146.13(J)
AND
LETTERS PATENT APPEAL NO.146/2013
Pandurang s/o Gulabrao Battinwar (since dead through LRs)
1. Smt. Kalpana wd/o Pandurang Battinwar,
aged about 42 years.
2. Krushnakumar s/o Pandurang Battinwar,
aged about 21 years.
3. Ku. Rashmi d/o Pandurang Battinwar,
Aged about 19 years.
4. Ankit s/o Pandurang Battinwar,
Aged about 16 years, Minor, through natural guardian
Mother Smt. Kalpana wd/o Pandurang Battinwar.
All residents of Plot No.9, S.B.I.Colony,
Sneh Nagar, Wardha Road, Nagpur. ....APPELLANTS
...V E R S U S...
1. Maharashtra State Road Transport Corporation,
through its Works Manager, Central Workshop,
M.I.D.C. Hingna Road, Nagpur.
... RESPONDENT
-------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Shri M.B.Joshi, Advocate for appellants in both the appeals.
Shri R.S.Charpe, Advocate for respondent no.1 in both the appeals.
------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
CORAM : A.S.CHANDURKAR and G.A.SANAP, JJ.
DATED : 14th October, 2021
ORAL JUDGMENT (Per A.S.Chandurkar, J.)
The challenge raised in these Letters Patent Appeals is to
the judgment dated 14.03.2013 delivered in Writ Petition
3 LPA117.13 & LPA 146.13(J)
No.368/2012 by which the order passed by the Industrial Court in
the complaint preferred by the original appellant has been modified
and it has been directed that the original appellant be brought on
time scale subject to satisfying the conditions prescribed in Resolution
No.8856 dated 31.08.1978 along with Clause -19 of 1985 Settlement.
2. Letters Patent Appeal No.146/2013 arises out of the
adjudication in Writ Petition No.1179/2012 by which the original
appellant was seeking monetary benefits on completion of 180 days
continuous service. This writ petition has been dismissed for the
reasons recorded in Writ Petition No.368/2012
3. The facts in brief are that the original appellant was
appointed as Peon on daily wages in 1994 with Maharashtra State
Road Transport Corporation (for short, the Corporation). His services
were transferred from Aurangabad to Nagpur in the year 1996. He
was brought on time scale and granted benefits on that basis from
14.03.2004. According to the original appellant, he was entitled to
be brought on time scale on completion of 180 days continuous
service in 1994. He therefore approached the Industrial Court by
filing a complaint. The Industrial Court on 09.04.2010 allowed the
complaint and directed the Corporation to bring the original
4 LPA117.13 & LPA 146.13(J)
appellant on time scale on completion of 180 days continuous
service. Being aggrieved the Corporation challenged this order by
filing Writ Petition No.368/2012. The original appellant filed Writ
Petition No.1179/2012 seeking monetary benefits from 01.11.1996.
Writ Petition No.368/2012 has been partly allowed by granting the
benefit of time scale subject to satisfying the requisite conditions
while Writ Petition No.1179/2012 has been dismissed. Hence these
appeals.
4. Shri M.B.Joshi, learned counsel for the appellants submits
that the original appellant having completed 180 days continuous
service in 1994 itself, he was entitled to be brought on time scale
thereafter. The Corporation however denied him this benefit without
any basis thus resulting in an unfair labour practice. It was his
submission that other similarly situated employees were granted such
benefits but the same were denied to the original appellant. The
Industrial Court having rightly held that the appellant was entitled to
such benefit on completion of 180 days continuous service, he ought
to have been granted monetary benefit from 01.11.1996. The learned
Single Judge was not justified in modifying the order passed by the
Industrial Court. He therefore submitted that the order passed by the
Industrial Court be restored and monetary benefits be granted from
5 LPA117.13 & LPA 146.13(J)
01.11.1996. In support of his submissions he placed reliance upon
the decision in Maharashtra State Road Transport Corporation Vs.
Kishore Kondiram Jagade and Ors. 2005 (4) MhL.J.798
5. Shri R.S.Charpe, learned counsel for the respondent-
Corporation supported the impugned order passed by the learned
Single Judge. According to him mere completion of 180 days of
continuous service was not sufficient and it was necessary to satisfy
the conditions as prescribed by Resolution No.8856 dated 31.08.1978
and Clause 19 of the 1985 Settlement. He submitted that this
position is well settled in view of the judgment of the Hon'ble
Supreme Court in Maharashtra State Road Transport Corporation Vs.
Premlal 2007 (9) SCC 141 . This decision was subsequently followed
in various other proceedings before this Court. Hence the learned
Single Judge rightly modified the order passed by the Industrial
Court on aforesaid lines.
6. We have heard the learned counsel for the parties and we
have perused the material on record. In the complaint the only
pleadings as made are that the appellant having completed
continuous service of 180 days, he was entitled to be brought on time
scale thereafter. Since he was brought on time scale on 14.03.2004,
6 LPA117.13 & LPA 146.13(J)
the same resulted in an unfair labour practice. These are the only
averments that can be found in the complaint. In the written
statement, it has been pleaded that mere completion of 180 days
continuous service is not sufficient for grant of time scale. As the
appellant was selected by the Selection Committee in the year 2004,
he has been brought on time-scale from dated 14.03.2004. It is
found that the Industrial Court disregarding Resolution No.8856 as
well as Clause 19 of 1985 Settlement directed the services of the
original appellant be brought on time scale only on completion of 180
days continuous service. The learned Single Judge however directed
the services of the appellant to be brought on time scale subject to
satisfying the prescribed conditions. This modification was after
noticing the judgment of the Hon'ble Supreme Court in Premlal
(supra) and other orders passed by this Court. There is no error
therefore in modifying the order passed by the Industrial Court.
7. As regards the submission of the learned counsel for the
appellant that the benefit of time scale was given to other employees,
the same is not pleaded in the complaint. There is no material on
record to substantiate this contention which has rightly not been gone
into by the Court. It is an admitted position that from 14.03.2004 the
original appellant has been brought on time scale.
7 LPA117.13 & LPA 146.13(J)
8. In view of aforesaid, we do not find any error in modifying
the order passed by the Industrial Court and holding the original
appellant entitled to be brought on time scale subject to satisfying the
requisite conditions. For the aforesaid reasons, both Letters Patent
Appeals stand dismissed with no orders as to costs.
JUDGE JUDGE
Andurkar. .
