The Deputy Director Of Health ... vs Smt. Mangal Baburao Ballal
2022 Latest Caselaw 12030 Bom

                                                                           20 WP-6206-2018.doc

BDP-SPS-TAC


  BHARAT
  DASHARATH
  PANDIT                         IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY
  Digitally signed
  by BHARAT
  DASHARATH
                                         CIVIL APPELLATE JURISDICTION
  PANDIT
  Date: 2022.11.25
  11:37:47 +0530
                                        WRIT PETITION NO.6206 OF 2018

                     The Deputy Director of Health
                     Services Kolhapur Circle,
                     Kolhapur                                  .... Petitioner.
                                V/s
                     Smt. Mangal Baburao Ballal                .... Respondent.

                     Mr. S. H. Kankal, AGP for the Petitioner/State.
                     Mr. Graham Francis i/b S.R. Ghavavat for the Respondent.


                                         CORAM: NITIN W. SAMBRE, J.

                                          DATE:    NOVEMBER 23, 2022


                     P.C.:-

                     1]       Complaint (ULP) No.147 of 2011 was preferred by the

Respondent-employee, alleging unfair labour practice under Section 28 read with Items 6, 9 and 10 of Schedule - IV of the MRTU and PULP Act, 1971. Relief claimed in the complaint was that of seeking permanency in service, as it is claimed that she has completed service of 240 days and was working against the vacant vacancy.

2] Vide judgment impugned dated 27th April, 2016 delivered in the aforesaid complaint by the Industrial Court, Kolhapur, status of permanency with payment of difference in wages came to be allowed. As such, this Petition.

20 WP-6206-2018.doc

3] Mr. Kankal, learned AGP appearing on behalf of the Petitioner would invite my attention to the following grounds viz (a) model standing orders would not apply to the case in hand as they were never adopted qua service conditions of the Respondent, (b) for very same relief, Respondent has approached the first Labour Court in Complaint (ULP) No. 72 of 2001 which was dismissed on 29/06/2011 and as such, said judgment will operate res judicata as aforesaid judgment of the Labour Court was not questioned by the Respondent,

(c) Respondent has admitted that even if she was working with the Petitioner, she was given appointment against leave vacancy and not permanent vacancy.

4] Counsel for Respondent seeks time to prepare and address on the aforesaid issues.

5]    Stand over to 18/01/2023.


                                  ( NITIN W. SAMBRE, J. )