Bombay High Court
Radial Gate Erection, Nagpur And 4 ... vs Sidhartha Mahadeo Nakhale, ... on 16 September, 2021
Bench: A.S. Chandurkar, Pushpa V. Ganediwala
LPA 559.10(J) 1/5
IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY
NAGPUR BENCH, NAGPUR.
LETTERS PATENT APPEAL NO.559/2010 IN WRIT PETITION NO.736/2006(D)
APPELLANTS : 1. Radial Gate Erection Office/Section,
Totladoh, Tq. Ramtek District Nagpur
2. Radial Gate Erection Sub-Division
No. 1 Behind Sadar Police Station,
Sadar, Nagpur through its Sub-
Divisional Officer/ Deputy Engineer
3. Radial Gate Erection Division
Chief Gate Erection Unit No.2,
Central Work Shop, Gaddigudam, Nagpur.
4. Radial Gate Erection Division,
Vainganga Nagar, Ajni, Nagpur.
Through its Superintending Engineer.
5. The Chief Engineer,
Irrigation Department (Mechanical)
Trumbakeshwar Road, Nashik.
//Versus//
RESPONDENT : Siddhartha s/o Mahadeo Nakhale (Dead through LRs)
1(a). Smt. Sunanda wd/o Siddharth Nakhale (wife)
1(b) Shri Rahul s/o Siddharth Nakhale (son)
1(c) Shri Pankaj s/o Siddharth Nakhale (son)
1(d) Shri Vishal s/o Siddharth Nakhale (son) and
1(e) Shri Majoj s/o Siddharth Nakhale (son)
All R/o. Ambadi, Gandhi Ward, Plot No.42,
Post Silli, Tq. And District Bhandara-441 324.
......
Mrs. S.S.Jachak, Assistant Government Pleader for appellants.
None for the respondents.
....
CORAM : A. S. CHANDURKAR AND PUSHPA V. GANEDIWALA, JJ.
DATED : 16th September, 2021.
LPA 559.10(J) 2/5
Oral Judgment : (Per A.S.Chandurkar, J.)
The judgment of learned Single Judge dated 25.03.2010 in
Writ Petition No.736/2006 is under challenge in this Letters Patent
Appeal.
2. The predecessor of the present respondents was appointed
on the post of 'Electrician' from 19.07.1982 on daily wages. On
completion of five years service, he was brought on Converted Regular
Temporary Establishment (CRTE) in the pay scale of Rs.1200-1800.
The respondent received his salary as 'Electrician' till 31.12.1991.
Thereafter by the order dated 06.01.1992 he was brought on the post
of 'Junior Electrician' . This was on the basis of corrigendum dated
23.10.1991 issued by the appellants treating him as 'Junior Electrician'.
Since according to the original respondent the aforesaid action
amounted to committing an unfair labour practice, he filed a complaint
under Section 28 of the Maharashtra Recognition of Trade Unions and
Prevention of Unfair Labour Practices Act, 1971 (for short, 'the said
Act') invoking the provisions of Item 9 of Schedule-IV to the said Act.
According to the appellants, it was admitted that five years continuous
service had been rendered by the respondent. It was their case that
the respondent was wrongly placed as 'Electrician' in the pay scale of
Rs.1200-1800 and on realizing the said mistake, he was brought on
LPA 559.10(J) 3/5
CRTE as a 'Junior Electrician' in the pay scale of Rs.950-1400. A stand
was taken that the respondent was always working as 'Junior
Electrician'.
3. The parties led evidence before the Industrial Court and the
learned Judge of the Industrial Court after considering the same
recorded a finding that since his appointment, the original respondent
was working as 'Electrician'. There was no evidence to show he ever
worked as 'Junior Electrician'. There was no basis for bringing him on
the post of 'Junior Electrician' and hence there was no question of re-
fixation of his position. The Industrial Court allowed the complaint
filed by the respondent on 25.04.2005 and directed repayment of any
excess payment recovered from him. The learned Single Judge after
considering the challenge raised to the order dated 25.04.2005 passed
by the Industrial Court was pleased to confirm the same. Hence this
Letters Patent Appeal.
4. Heard Mrs. S. S. Jachak, learned Assistant Government
Pleader for the appellants. She submits that since the original
respondent was wrongly shown as 'Electrician' when he was appointed
in the year 1982, a corrigendum dated 23.10.1991 was issued for
correcting the said mistake. She sought to demonstrate that the
original respondent did not have any right to hold the post of
LPA 559.10(J) 4/5
'Electrician' but was entitled to hold the post of 'Junior Electrician'. It
was submitted that since his designation was wrongly shown, the
mistake was duly corrected and no relief could have been granted to
the original respondent.
5. After hearing the learned counsel for the appellants and
after perusing the material on record, it is clear that there is evidence
on record to indicate that since inception the original respondent was
working as 'Electrician' and was being paid salary in the pay scale of
Rs.1200-1800. A finding has been recorded in paragraph 8 of the
judgment of the learned Single Judge that though it was the case of the
appellants that the original respondent was working as 'Junior
Electrician', there was no evidence brought on record in that regard. It
has been found that the appellants were not in a position to justify the
legality of the order passed by them re-fixing the position of the
respondent on the post of 'Junior Electrician'.
6. Considering the findings recorded by the Industrial Court
which has been subsequently confirmed by the learned Single Judge,
we do not find any reason to take a different view as the said findings
are based on material available on record. No other view is possible
than the one that has been taken.
LPA 559.10(J) 5/5
7. Accordingly we do not find any merit in the Letters Patent
Appeal. It is dismissed with no orders as to costs.
JUDGE JUDGE
Andurkar..
