Bombay High Court
Chief Executive Officer, Zilla ... vs Sanjiv S/O Dhonduji Morkure on 5 December, 2023
Author: Avinash G. Gharote
Bench: Avinash G. Gharote
1 39-wp-1037-2019.odt
IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY
NAGPUR BENCH AT NAGPUR
WRIT PETITION NO.1037/2019
Chief Executive Officer, Zilla Parishad, Bhandara and others
Vs.
Sanjiv S/o Dhonduji Morkure
Office Notes, Office Memoranda Court's or Judge's orders
of Coram, Appearances, Court's
orders or directions and
Registrar's orders
Mr. A.Y. Kapgate, Advocate for petitioners
Mr. N.R. Saboo, Advocate for Respondent
CORAM: AVINASH G. GHAROTE, J.
DATED : 5th December, 2023
Mr. Kapgate, learned counsel for the
petitioners submits that the judgment of the learned
Labour Court dated 07/10/2015 (page 23),
directing reinstatement of the respondent as well as
the judgment dated 02/1/2018 of the learned
Industrial Court (page 15) cannot be sustained as
there is no relationship of employer and employee
between the petitioners and the respondent. For this
position, he places reliance upon averments in the
complaint (para 3 page 26), in which the respondent
/ complainant makes an averment that he was
appointed as vehicle driver under Rashtriy Gramin
Arogya Abhiyan on 01/8/2009 and was posted at
the Public Health Center, Betala. This position is
again reiterated in para 7 page 27 of the complaint
2 39-wp-1037-2019.odt
in which again there is an averment that the
respondent / complainant was appointed under the
Government scheme, as indicated above. Mr.
Kapgate, learned counsel for the petitioners further
submitted that the Rashtriya Gramin Arogya
Abhiyan scheme is not a scheme brought into effect
by the petitioners, but the petitioners are merely an
implementing agency for the said scheme, on
account of which, there cannot be any relationship
of employer and employee between the petitioners
and the respondent. He also invites my attention to
the reply, which was adopted as written statement
(page 39), wherein it is stated that there is absence
of such relationship and the appointment of the
respondent / complainant is by the Rugna Kalyan
Samiti vide Resolution no.3 dated 08/8/2009 and
the said Samiti is functioning under the Rashtriya
Gramin Arogya Abhiyan and not at the behest of the
petitioners. He further invites my attention to the
affidavit in lieu of oral evidence of the respondent /
complainant in which his appointment under the
Rashtriya Gramin Arogya Abhiyan has been
reiterated by him and his cross-examination para 8
page 51 in which the respondent / complainant has
admitted that the petitioners have not given any
appointment letter, there was no public
advertisement and he was appointed by the Rugna
3 39-wp-1037-2019.odt
Kalyan Samiti. He also does not know the
relationship between Rugna Kalyan Samiti and
General Hospital, Bhandara and so also, the cross-
examination in para Nos.10 and 11 in which there is
an admission by him regarding appointment by
Rugna Kalyan Samiti by resolution dated
08/08/2009 and ignorance regarding any
relationship between Rugna Kalyan Samiti and the
petitioners. He further admits that Rugna Kalyan
Samiti has not been made a party to the complaint.
It is in this background it is contended that the
findings rendered by the Courts below are without
any merits, as it was for the respondent /
complainant to have established that the Rugna
Kalyan Samiti, which had appointed the respondent
was in fact acting for and on behalf of the
respondent and absence of any such material on
record would, therefore, indicate that the absence of
relationship of employer and employee between the
petitioners and respondent. In view of which, the
impugned judgments according to him cannot be
sustained.
2. Mr. Saboo, learned counsel for the
respondent / complainant relies upon the certificate
of experience issued by the Medical Officer, Public
Health Center, Betala (Exh. U-22, page 32) and the
order of termination issued by the same person
4 39-wp-1037-2019.odt
(Exh. U 23 page 33) to contend that this would
indicate that since the termination was issued by the
Medical Officer of the Public Health Center, their
exists a relationship of employer and employee
between the petitioners and the respondent and the
findings rendered by the Courts below are,
therefore, required to be sustained.
3. The Rashtriy Gramin Arogya Abhiyan
Scheme in this context would be necessary to be
considered.
4. List on 13th December, 2023, by which
time, either counsel of the parties shall file the policy
of the scheme on the record.
JUDGE
MP Deshpande
Signed by: Mr. M.P. Deshpande
Designation: PA To Honourable Judge
Date: 05/12/2023 18:03:28
