Municipal Council, Wani Through Chief ... vs Center Of India Trade Union, Vidarbha ...
2025 Latest Caselaw 7144 Bom

Bombay High Court

Municipal Council, Wani Through Chief ... vs Center Of India Trade Union, Vidarbha ... on 4 November, 2025

2025:BHC-NAG:11405


                     J-wp3272.17.odt                                                  1/10


                              IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY
                                              NAGPUR BENCH, NAGPUR


                                         WRIT PETITION No.3272 OF 2017


                     Municipal Council, Wani,
                     Through its Chief Officer,
                     Tahsil Wani, District Yavatmal.                     :    PETITIONER

                                         ...VERSUS...

                     Center of Indian Trade Union,
                     Vidarbha General Trade Union,
                     affiliated to Wani Nagar Parishad
                     Water Supply Labour Union, Wani,
                     Distt. Yavatmal, through its President.              :   RESPONDENT

                     =-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=
                     Mr. Mahesh I Dhatrak, Advocate for Petitioner.
                     None for Respondent.
                     =-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=


                     CORAM                       :   NANDESH S. DESHPANDE, J.
                     RESERVED ON                 :   16th OCTOBER, 2025.
                     PRONOUNCED ON               :   04th NOVEMBER, 2025.

                     JUDGMENT :

1. Heard Mr. Mahesh I. Dhatrak, learned counsel for the

petitioner.

2. In the present matter, the judgment of the Industrial

Court, passed in Complaint (ULP) No.46/2010 on 5.8.2016 is

challenged. The matter was heard by this Court and notice was

issued on 30th June, 2017. While issuing notice learned Single

Judge of this Court granted stay to the impugned order/judgment

dated 5.8.2016.

3. Since nobody appeared on behalf of the respondent in

spite of service, this Court vide its order dated 20 th January, 2021

issued "Rule" and again a notice was issued on merits. As nobody

appeared on behalf of the respondent on 16th October, 2025, the

matter came up for hearing. In that view of the matter, it is heard

finally.

4. I have heard Mr. Mahesh I. Dhatrak, learned counsel

for the petitioner. He took me through the impugned order/

judgment of the Industrial Court, Yavatmal, Complaint (ULP)

No.46/2010. It is his submission that the Industrial Court

misconstrued the order of this Court passed in earlier round of

petition in Writ Petition No.1440/2009. He, therefore, prays that

the judgment of the Industrial Court allowing the complaint of the

respondent herein is bad in law and is liable to be quashed and set

aside.

5. Before adverting to the controversy involved in the

present complaint it would be apropos to state brief facts.

6. The respondent/Union i.e. the original complainant is

registered under the Trade Unions Act, 1926 having registration

No.NGP-2156. The complainant is functioning in the petitioner/

Municipal Council and the employees engaged by the respondent

are the members of the complainant Union. The respondent No.1 is

appointing authority of the employees and the respondent No.2 is

President of the Municipal Council, Wani. It is submitted in the

Complaint before the Industrial Court that the employees shown in

Annexure-A thereof are continuously working as skilled, semi-

skilled and un-skilled workers since the year 2000 in Water Works

Division. As per the averments in the Complaint since there was a

dispute in respect of non-payment of wages the matter was taken

up in conciliation and the agreement was reached between the

respondent and the Union on 11.8.2005. As per the agreement it

was resolved that the members of the complainant Union will be

engaged continuously and they will be given certain facilities. In

spite of this position, the respondent Municipal Council by

resolution dated 19.1.2007 proposed to give the work to a

contractor and also reduced number of employees.

7. This prompted the Union to file a Complaint (ULP)

No.18/2007 before the Industrial Court, Yavatmal, which was

allowed by the said Court vide judgment dated 22.10.2008. In the

said judgment it was declared that the resolution dated 19.1.2007

is illegal and it was set aside. It was also directed that the

petitioner/Municipal Council will not reduce the number of

employees. The operative order of the Judgment dated 22.10.2008,

passed in Complaint ULP No.18/2007, of the Member, Industrial

Court, Yavatmal is reproduced as under :

"The complaint is allowed.

It is hereby declared that the Resolution dated 19.1.1997 was intended to reduce the employees and therefore the same is held to be illegal and against the contract entered before the Labour Officer and therefore held to be illegal was void. The employer is directed not to reduce employees without following due procedure laid down in the MRTU & PULP Act.

They are declared to be the employees of the Nagar Parishad and there is a relationship of employee and employer between them.

They are directed not to indulge in unfair labour practice and desist from indulging in such activities in future.

The employer/respondent is directed to pay Rs.2500/- (Rs. Two thousand five hundred) to the complainant's members cost of prosecuting this complaint and the same be paid within one month of the passing of this order"

8. This order/judgment was challenged by the petitioner/

Municipal Council by filing Writ Petition before this Court bearing

Writ Petition No.1440/2009 which was disposed of by the Hon'ble

High Court vide order dated 30th June, 2010. It is relevant to

reproduce the order of this Court and it is reproduced as under :

"Heard Shri M.I. Dhatrak, learned counsel for petitioner and Shri S.S. Mujumdar, learned counsel for respondent-Union.

Shri Mujumdar, learned counsel states that the resolution passed on 19.01.2007 has been rightly set aside, because it was contrary to the agreement arrived at between the parties before the Conciliation Officer. According to him the resolution was only for years 2007 and 2008 and hence challenge to orders of Industrial Court in present Writ Petition has become infructuous.

Shri Dhatrak, learned counsel contends that the Industrial Court could not have considered the validity of the resolution at the instance of the employees who were already out of employment. He further wants to point out that the relationship of employer and employee was not admitted.

I find that a complaint was filed by the Union, and as such there was no question of any disputed relationship of employer and employee. The resolution purported to appoint contractor and that contractor was to engage staff for Filteration and Water Supply plant. The said resolution was to operate only for the year 2007-08.

In this situation, I find that it is not necessary for this court to interfere at this stage. However, the petitioner Municipal Council is at liberty to take appropriate steps in this respect in accordance with law with advance copy thereof to the respondent Trade Union. The respondent Trade Union shall be free to challenge said decision if it is aggrieved thereby. The Forum considering such challenge shall not be influenced either by this order or by the impugned judgment of the Industrial Court dated 22.10.2008 in ULP Complaint No.18/2007.

Hence with this liberty to petitioner, present Writ Petition is disposed of. No costs."

9. It is further stated in the Complaint before the

Industrial Court that the complainant Union thereafter served the

respondent notice dated 29.7.2010 and 10.8.2010 but the said

notices failed to evoke any response. Under these circumstances

and since the employees of the Union are entitled to receive wages

from 1.4.2007 till 30th September, 2010, the members of the Union

were not given wages and other benefits as stated in the agreement

which prompted the Union to again approach the Industrial Court.

In the said Complaint a direction was prayed for directing the

respondent to pay the amount of wages as calculated in the

schedule.

10. The respondent before the Industrial Court, Municipal

Council (petitioner herein) filed a response/written statement

thereby opposing the claim made by the employees Union. It was

admitted that by resolution dated 19.1.2007 the Municipal Council

proposed to give the work of Water supply to a contractor and the

said action was set aside by the Industrial Court. The Municipal

Council, however, denied that the employees of the Union were

regularly engaged from the year 2000 till March 2007 for Water

Supply Department. It is stated that the employees claiming to be

of the Union are in fact not of the Municipal Council, but are

employees of the contractor.

11. After framing of issues the parties examined

themselves and the matter was argued on merits. The Industrial

Court by relying on findings in the earlier judgment of the said

Court reached to a conclusion that by not allowing the members of

the Complainant Union to resume duties, the respondent/Municipal

Council has engaged in unfair labour practice under Item 9 of

Schedule-IV and directed it to desist from the same. It was further

directed that the respondent/Municipal Council would pay wages to

the employees/members of the Complainant Union listed in

Annexure-A as per the given calculations.

12. It is this judgment which is impugned in the present

petition. As already stated there is no representation from the

respondent Union. I have, therefore, heard Mr. Mahesh I. Dhatrak,

learned counsel for the petitioner. He submits that the Industrial

Court gravely understood the true purport of earlier order of this

Court passed in Writ Petition No.1440/2009. The controversy in

the present matter would certainly boiled down to the correct

interpretation of the order reproduced supra.

13. As can be seen from the said order, this Court has

recorded a finding that it is not necessary to interfere in the

order/judgment of the Industrial Court passed in earlier round of

litigation, at this stage, since the resolution purported to appoint a

contractor to engage staff or filtration and water supply was only

for the year 2000 to 2008. In the light of this observation, in my

opinion, the finding of the Industrial Court regarding the

complainant proving that they are employees of the Municipal

Council Wani and are working them since 2000 as labourers has

attained finality. Furthermore, the finding of the Industrial Court in

earlier round of litigation regarding the employees not being the

employees of contractor has also attained finality. This Court has

not chosen to interfere in those findings only with a view that the

contract was only for the year 2007-2008 and the order of this

Court was passed on 30th June, 2010.

14. Further reading of the order of this Court in its true

purport would reveal that the Municipal Council was granted

liberty to take appropriate steps in that regard in accordance with

law and the respondent Union was granted liberty to challenge the

said decision if it is aggrieved thereby. As can be seen from the

subsequent complaint filed by the respondent Union, the Municipal

Council instead of taking steps as permitted by this Court, has

chosen not to grant benefits of the earlier judgment of the Industrial

Court which prompted the employees Union to again knock the

doors of the Industrial Court.

15. Thus, a conjunctive reading of the order of the

Industrial Court along with the order of this Court stated supra

would reveal that even though there was no adjudication on merits,

this Court chose not to interfere in the order of the Industrial Court.

A meaningful reading of both the orders, in my view, would make

the position clear that the findings of the Industrial Court in earlier

round of litigation regarding employer employees relationship and

the employees being entitled for benefits has attained finality. True

it is that the Industrial Court in subsequent round of litigation has

observed that this Court has confirmed the order of the Industrial

Court, but the said observation has to be read in the context of both

the orders reproduced supra. Even though the said observation of

the Industrial Court in subsequent round of litigation may not be

entirely correct but the fact remains that this Court in earlier round

of litigation has chosen not to interfere in the finding of facts

rendered by the Industrial Court.

16. As can be seen from the order of the Industrial Court in

the judgment impugned, it has mainly relied on the judgment of the

same Court in the earlier round of litigation stated supra and came

to a conclusion that the action of the respondent Municipal Council

amounts to unfair labour practice. However, it is noteworthy to

mention that even if the employees were reporting for duty, the

Municipal Council was not engaging them for duty. I, therefore,

find no fault in the order/judgment of the Industrial Court. In that

view of the matter, following order is passed :

ORDER

(i) Writ Petition is disposed of on following terms :

(ii) The petitioner/Municipal Council, Wani is

directed to pay 50% of the wages to the employees mentioned in

Annexure-A of the Judgment of the Industrial Court, Yavatmal in

Complaint (ULP) No.46/2010 within four weeks from the date of

this order.

(iii) If such a payment is not done within four weeks,

the amount would carry an interest at the rate of 6% per annum

from the date it has become due till the payment is actually made.

(iv) Rest of the Judgment of the Industrial Court,

Yavatmal in Complaint (ULP) No.46/2010 is maintained.

(v) With this observation, writ petition is disposed

of. Rule is discharged.

(NANDESH DESHPANDE, J.)

wadode

Signed by: Mr. Devendra Wadode Designation: PS To Honourable Judge Date: 04/11/2025 17:11:08