Bombay High Court
Nitin Bodhare vs People Education Society And 3 Ors on 13 March, 2023
Bench: N. J. Jamadar
SWAROOP Digitally
SWAROOP
signed by
SHARAD SHARAD PHADKE
Date: 2023.03.15
PHADKE 10:42:42 +0530
wp 1580 of 2022.doc
IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY
ORDINARY ORIGINAL CIVIL JURISDICTION
WRIT PETITION NO.1580 OF 2022
Nitin Bodhare ... Petitioner
versus
M/s. People Education Society and Ors. ... Respondents
Mr. Keval Tachak i/by Ms. Suvarna Joshi, for Petitioner.
None for Respondents.
CORAM: N.J.JAMADAR, J.
DATE : 13 MARCH 2023
P.C.
1. The challenge in this Petition is to the judgment and order dated 6
March 2020 passed by the learned Member, Industrial Court, Maharashtra, Mumbai,
in Complaint (ULP) No.87 of 2013, whereby the complaint preferred by the Petitioner
came to be dismissed.
2. The Petitioner was appointed at Siddharth Arts, Science and Commerce
College on compassionate grounds in view of the death of his father in harness on 10
December 2004.
3. The Respondent No.1 is the Trust which runs Siddharth College.
Respondent Nos.2 an d3 are the Deputy Chairman and Secretary of Respondent No.1.
Whereas, Respondent No.4 is the Principal of Siddharth College.
4. Despite the Petitioner having been appointed on class IV post in the year
2005 and rendered continuous service on the said post, the Respondents have not
SSP 1/4
wp 1580 of 2022.doc
extended the benefit of permanency with a view to deprive the Petitioner of the status
of a permanent employee and the benefits thereof. Hence, the Petitioner lodged a
complaint of unfair labour practice under Section 28 read with Items 5, 6, 9 and 10 of
the Maharashtra Recognition of Trade Unions & Prevention of Unfair Labour
Practices Act, 1971 (the MRTU & PULP Act, 1971).
5. The Respondent Nos.1 and 3 resisted the complaint by filing a written
statement. It was, inter alia, contended that Siddharth College is an aided institution
and every appointment is subject to the approval of the Joint Director, Higher
Education, Mumbai. The proposal for approval to the appointment of the Petitioner
had been sent, but not granted. The Respondents had made and were making genuine
efforts to obtain the approval. Hence, there was no question of unfair labour practice
on the part of the Respondents.
6. After appraisal of the evidence led by the parties, the learned Member,
Industrial Court was persuaded to hold that the Complainant failed to make out a case
under Items 5, 9 and 10 of Schedule IV of the Act, 1971. As regards the aspect of
denial of permanency, the learned Member was of the view that there was no material
to show that the Respondents had intention to deprive the Complainant of the status
and benefit of permanency. On the other hand, the Respondents were pursuing the
proposal with the Joint Director of Higher Education, Mumbai for grant of approval to
the appointment of the Complainant. Hence, no unfair labour practice within the
SSP 2/4
wp 1580 of 2022.doc
meaning of Item 6 of Schedule IV also was made out.
7. Being aggrieved, the Petitioner has approached this Court.
8. I have heard the learned Counsel for the Petitioner. Perused the
material on record, including the impugned order.
9. From the perusal of the material on record, the finding of the Industrial
Court that no case of unfair labour practice within the meaning of Items 5, 9 and 10 of
Schedule IV is made out, seems impeccable. The Industrial Court, with reference to
the evidence and admissions during the course of the cross-examination of the
Complainant, recorded a justifiable finding that though the Complainant was called for
an interview in the selection process, the Complainant could not succeed. It does not
appear that there was a similarly circumstanced co-employee and favoritism or
partiality was shown to the disadvantage of the Complainant. Neither there is a case
of failure to implement award, settlement or agreement. Nor there is an iota of
evidence to show that the Respondents indulged in act of force or violence.
10. The learned Member, Industrial Court, specifically observed that in the
context of granting permanency, the Respondents had initiated steps. Proposals were
submitted to the Education Department. Once, the proposal was not approved. In the
year 2013 again, a proposal had been sent. In the context of these rather
uncontroverted facts, the learned Member, Industrial Court, concluded that there was
no material to even show remotely that there was unfair labour practice, as
SSP 3/4
wp 1580 of 2022.doc
contemplated under Item 6 of Schedule IV of the Act.
11. An avenue was, however, kept open for the Complainant to seek
redressal in the event the Respondents failed to move the proposal for approval within
one month of the dismissal of the complaint.
12. The aforesaid approach of the Industrial Court, in my view, cannot be
said to be unjustifiable. There is material to show that the Complainant had
participated in the selection process, but could not succeed. Evidently, even before
the lodging of the complaint, the Respondents had moved a proposal for grant of
approval. In any event, intent to deprive the complainant of the status and privileges
of a permanent employee is singularly absent.
13. In the circumstances, no interference is warranted in exercise of extra-
ordinary writ jurisdiction, especially in the context of the liberty granted to the
Petitioner to agitate the grievance in the event of the failure of the Respondents to
pursue the case for grant of approval.
14. Hence, the Petition does not deserve to be entertained.
15. The Petition stands dismissed.
( N.J.JAMADAR, J. )
SSP 4/4
