Wednesday, 06, May, 2026
 
 
 
Expand O P Jindal Global University
 
  
  
 
 
 

Maharashtra State Road Transport ... vs Narendra Prakash Jagtap Divisional ...
2024 Latest Caselaw 23478 Bom

Citation : 2024 Latest Caselaw 23478 Bom
Judgement Date : 9 August, 2024

Bombay High Court

Maharashtra State Road Transport ... vs Narendra Prakash Jagtap Divisional ... on 9 August, 2024

  2024:BHC-AS:32648

                       Megha                                                       8_wp_10677_2023.docx


                                 IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY

                                               CIVIL APPELLATE JURISDICTION
                                             WRIT PETITION NO. 10677 OF 2023

                       Maharashtra State Road Transport                                ...Petitioner
                       Corporation
                                                   V/s.
                        Narendra (Nitin) Prakash Jagtap & Ors.     ...Respondents
                       ____________________________________________________________
                       Mr. Nitesh V. Bhutekar with Ms Priyanka Lanke, Mr. Prathamesh Mandlik
                       & Karan Singh Bhadoria for the Petitioner.

                       Ms Seema Sarnaik, Sr. Advocate i/b Ms Sangeeta Salvi for the Respondent
                       Nos. 2, 3 and 6 to 11.



                                                           CORAM : SANDEEP V. MARNE, J.

Dated : 9 August 2024.

P.C. :

1) This Petition is filed challenging judgment and order dated 12 December 2022 passed by the Member, Industrial Court, Nashik by which the complaint is partly allowed and promotions are directed to be given to Respondent Nos.2, 3 and 6 to 11 as per the Government Resolutions dated 18 November 2008 and 10 January 2011.

2) I have heard Mr. Bhutekar, the learned counsel appearing for Digitally signed by the Petitioner and Ms Seema Sarnaik, the learned senior counsel appearing MEGHA MEGHA SHREEDHAR SHREEDHAR PARAB PARAB Date:

2024.08.14 for Respondent Nos.2, 3 and 6 to 11.

          18:53:46
          +0530





                                                             9 August 2024



 Megha                                                      8_wp_10677_2023.docx


3)              After having considered the submissions advanced by the

learned counsel for the parties, it appears that Circular dated 18 November 2008 issued by the Petitioner -Corporation envisaged grant of promotion to the candidates on the post of Clerk or Traffic Controller (Junior) only in the event of the candidate concerned not being appointed on the post of Traffic Controller (Junior) on account of non-availability of posts at the relevant time and he being appointed as Junior Conductor.

4) Perusal of the impugned order passed by the learned Member, Industrial Court would indicate that the Court has dealt with various objections relating to delay, qualifications and the principle of estoppel. However, it appears that no findings are recorded about each of the Complainants as to whether any sanction was given for their appointment as Traffic Controller (Junior) at the relevant time. According to Petitioner - Corporation benefit of the Circular is admissible only on satisfaction of twin conditions of (i) making application for posts of either Clerk or Traffic Controller (Junior) and (ii) grant of approval for compassionate appointment on the post of Traffic Controller (Junior). Both the sides have filed detailed pleadings to demonstrate case of each of the candidates in respect of their respective claims. However, in my view this exercise needs to be undertaken before the Industrial Court, particularly in view of the fact that all these documents were never brought on record before the Industrial Court. It would therefore be appropriate to remand the complaint for fresh decision before the Industrial Court for the purpose of examining whether the concerned Complainants had applied for the post of Traffic Controller (Junior) and in any case whether they were recommended for being appointed on the post of Traffic Controller (Junior) but actually appointed

9 August 2024

Megha 8_wp_10677_2023.docx

on the post of Junior Conductor on account of non-availability of posts of 'Traffic Controller (Junior).

5) Accordingly, order dated 12 December 2022 passed by the Industrial Court, Nashik in Complaint (ULP) No.29 of 2009 is set aside. The Complaint (ULP) No.29 of 2009 is restored on the file of the Industrial Court, Nashik. Both the parties are at liberty to produce such additional documents as may be necessary and even to lead additional documents to prove such documents. The Industrial Court shall proceed to decide the Complaint afresh in the light of the observations made above in an expeditious manner preferably within a period of eight months from today.

6) With the above directions, the Writ Petition is disposed of.

7) Parties shall remain present before the Industrial Court on 19 August 2024 and obtain further directions.

[SANDEEP V. MARNE, J.]

9 August 2024

 
Download the LatestLaws.com Mobile App
 
 
Latestlaws Newsletter
 

Publish Your Article

 

Campus Ambassador

 

Media Partner

 

Campus Buzz

 

LatestLaws Guest Court Correspondent

LatestLaws Guest Court Correspondent Apply Now!
 

LatestLaws.com presents: Lexidem Offline Internship Program, 2026

 

LatestLaws.com presents 'Lexidem Online Internship, 2026', Apply Now!

 
 

LatestLaws Partner Event : Smt. Nirmala Devi Bam Memorial International Moot Court Competition

 
 
Latestlaws Newsletter