Bombay High Court
The Divisional Controller M S R T C Latur vs Prkash Devnath Bhagat on 18 January, 2024
2024:BHC-AUG:2087
1
4863.05WP
IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY
BENCH AT AURANGABAD
WRIT PETITION NO.4863 OF 2005
The Divisional Controller,
Maharashtra State Road
Transport Corporation,
Division-Latur, Dist-Latur. .. PETITIONER
VERSUS
Prakash s/o. Devnath Bhagat,
Age-54 years, Occu-Service,
R/o. S.T.Quarter, B-2,
Ambajogai Road, Latur,
District-Latur. .. RESPONDENT
...
Mrs.R.D.Reddy, Advocate for the petitioner.
...
CORAM : ARUN R. PEDNEKER, J.
DATE : 18.01.2024
ORAL JUDGMENT :
1] By way of present Writ Petition, the petitioner is
challenging the impugned judgment and order passed by
the Industrial Court, Latur in Complaint [ULP] No.(159/98)
97/2004 dated 24.12.2004.
2] It is the case of the petitioner that the petitioner
is a Maharashtra State Road Transport Corporation. The
respondent is working with the petitioner - Corporation as
a Driver since 1981. He has also passed Departmental
4863.05WP
Examination for the post of 'Assistant Traffic Inspector' [for
short 'ATI'] in October, 1995. The petitioner - Corporation
has given temporary promotion to the respondent as an
Assistant Traffic Inspector on 12.12.1997. But when it came
into the knowledge of the Corporation that there is only one
post reserved for Scheduled Caste category and including
the respondent, there were total 04 candidates in the queue
in which respondent is junior most candidate between
them, therefore, his name was shown in the waiting list.
Thereafter, the Corporation has given purely temporary
promotion to the respondent by giving clear understanding
that respondent can be reverted on his original post any
time or as per the directions of the higher authority in this
regard. As per the guidelines and settled law, 50% post are
reserved for departmental candidates and 50% posts are
kept open from outsiders category. Thereafter, the
Corporation has withdrawn the promotion of the
respondent from the post of Assistant Traffic Inspector and
reverted him to his original post.
3] Being aggrieved with the order of withdrawal of
the promotion by the corporation from the post of Assistant
Traffic Inspector, the respondent filed complaint of unfair
labour practice before the Industrial Court, Latur.
4] In response to the said complaint, the
Corporation submitted that the promotion of the respondent
4863.05WP
was temporary to the post of Assistant Traffic Inspector and
it was noticed that only one post is reserved for scheduled
caste category and including the respondent, there were
total 04 candidates in the queue in which respondent is
junior most candidate between them, therefore, his name
was shown in the waiting list. Therefore, the Corporation
has withdrawn the order of promotion of the respondent as
Assistant Traffic Inspector and reverted the respondent
back.
5] In the complaint [ULP] filed by the respondent
the Industrial Court held that the respondent was a member
of Scheduled Caste category. The Industrial Court has held
that the candidate who was promoted on the post of A.T.I.,
is senior to him and therefore, the respondent has not
committed unfair labour practice. Though, the respondent
has not committed unfair labour practice, but the
complainant has served as A.T.I. from 12.12.1997. His
service is unblemished. He is qualified for the post of ATI.
The complainant is working on the vacant post as ATI and
he has served about 7 years on the said post and atleast till
fresh candidate is appointed the Corporation has to keep
the respondent on the post of ATI. The Tribunal has held
that the Corporation has rightly reverted the respondent
from the post of ATI. There is no challenge to this order of
Tribunal by the respondent. However, the Tribunal has
passed the following order :
4863.05WP
ORDER
1] Complaint is dismissed.
2] However, respondent is hereby directed to
adjust the complainant on the post of Assistant
Traffic Inspector (A.T.I.) as the posts of
A.T.I. are vacant with the respondent.
3] Under the circumstances of the case
parties to bear their own costs.
6] The complaint filed by the complainant is
dismissed. However, the Corporation by the impugned
order was directed to adjust the complainant on the post of
Assistant Traffic Inspector as the posts of A.T.I. are vacant
with the respondent.
7] Challenging the clause no.2 of the final order
dated 24.12.2004 of the Industrial Court, the petitioner -
Corporation has filed the present Writ Petition and by
interim order dated 28.07.2005, the said direction was
stayed by this Court in terms of prayer clause-D.
8] The respondent is served, none has entered
appearance on behalf of respondent.
9] The learned counsel for the petitioner submits
that the complaint is dismissed and the right of the
4863.05WP
petitioner to revert the respondent is upheld. Further the
Tribunal has upheld that the appointment of the respondent
on the promoted post was for a temporary period and that
no wrong is committed by the Corporation in reverting the
respondent. The learned counsel for the petitioner submits
that once the action of the Corporation is upheld, the
Tribunal erred in giving direction to adjust the complainant
on the post of Assistant Traffic Inspector as the posts of
A.T.I. are vacant with the Corporation. The learned counsel
for the petitioner further submits that subsequent direction
issued by the Industrial Court is erroneous in law.
10] Having considered the submission of the
petitioner I am of the view that the Tribunal ought to have
not directed to adjust the respondent on the vacant post of
A.T.I., moreso when the action of the Corporation reverting
the respondent was upheld by the Tribunal. The respondent
was 3rd in the waiting list and cannot jump over the other
wait list candidates. The Tribunal has also not examined the
availability of promotional post in open category. The
Tribunal at best could have given direction to consider the
respondent in the event the post is available along with
other eligible candidates. Thus, the direction of the Tribunal
in clause (ii) of the final order is erroneous and illegal and
is set aside.
4863.05WP
12] Rule is made absolute in above terms. The
present Writ Petition is disposed of.
[ARUN R. PEDNEKER]
JUDGE
DDC
