Bombay High Court
Forest Devpt. Corporation Maha., ... vs Waman S/O Sitaram Itwate on 15 March, 2023
Bench: Avinash G. Gharote
913. WP 1603 of 2023.odt
1
IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY
NAGPUR BENCH AT NAGPUR
WRIT PETITION NO.1603/2023
Forest Development Corporation Maharashtra, Through its Divisional Manager,
Forest Project Division, Hingna Road, Ambazari Nagpur and another
...Versus...
Waman s/o Sitaram Inwate and another
- - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - --- -
Office Notes, Office Memoranda of Coram, Court's or Judge's orders
appearances, Court's orders or directions
and Registrar's orders
- - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - ----- ------------ -
Shri V.P. Maldhure, Advocate for petitioners
Shri N.R. Patil, AGP for respondent no.2
CORAM : AVINASH G. GHAROTE, J.
DATE : 15/03/2023
1. Heard Shri V.P. Maldhure, the learned counsel for
the petitioners and Shri N.R. Patil, learned Assistant
Government Pleader for the respondent no.2.
2. The judgment and order dated 23/08/2022,
passed by the Industrial Court in Complaint (ULP)
No.198/2014, granting permanency to respondent No.1, is
questioned in the present writ petition.
3. After going through the record, the undisputed
facts emerge are that respondent no.1 was appointed as Daily
Wager on 11/02/1995 and on 05/07/2003, he was
terminated. Thereupon, a complaint was filed by respondent
913. WP 1603 of 2023.odt
no.1, which was decided in his favour on 03/04/2010, thereby
directing the petitioners to reinstate the respondent no.1 with
full back wages and continuity of service. A revision was filed
against the said judgment and order, which came to be
dismissed vide judgment and order dated 14/06/2012, which
was later on carried in Writ Petition No.999/2013 and in the
writ petition stay to the back wages was granted, but no stay
was granted to the reinstatement and continuity in service and
in that view of the matter, the respondent no.1 joined the
duties on 12/03/2014 and since then he is in service.
4. The Government Resolution dated 16/10/2012,
discloses the policy of the Government that whoever in the
Forest Department as well as in the Forest Development
Corporation were working during the period from 01/11/1994
to 30/06/2004 to make them as permanent. In pursuance to
the said Government Resolution, the respondent no.1 filed the
complaint and sought relief of permanency which is granted
vide impugned judgment and order dated 23/08/2022. The
learned Industrial Court after recording the reasons in detailed
in light of the above referred admitted facts, has held that the
respondent no.1 is entitled for grant of permanency.
5. Shri V.P. Maldhure, learned counsel for the
petitioners, submits that the writ petition challenging the
judgment and order granting reinstatement and continuity of
service is pending and, therefore, till the decision of the said
913. WP 1603 of 2023.odt
writ petition, grant of permanency is illegal and unsustainable
in the eyes of law.
6. I am not convinced with the submission of the
learned counsel for the petitioners, as there is no dispute that
in the said writ petition the stay was not granted to the
reinstatement and continuity of service. In that view of the
matter, it can be safely said that the respondent no.1 is in
continuous service from 11/02/1995 and the Government
Resolution dated 16/10/2012 would apply to him and the
natural consequences, therefore, would be that the benefits,
which are awarded under the said Government Resolution, to
the similarly circumstanced employees, the respondent no.1 is
also entitled for the same.
7. In the circumstances, I do not find any error or
perversity in the impugned judgment and order passed by the
Industrial Court. Accordingly, the writ petition is dismissed.
No order as to costs.
8. It is made clear that in case the petitioners
succeed in the pending writ petition on the issue of continuity
of service of the respondent-employee, the consequences of the
same will be followed.
(AVINASH G. GHAROTE, J.)
Digitally signed bySHAILENDRA
SUKHADEORAO WADKAR
Signing Date:16.03.2023 10:52
Wadkar
