Bombay High Court
Muncipal Council, Kanhan-Pipri, ... vs Varsha Wd/O Ravindra Urkude on 22 September, 2025
2025:BHC-NAG:9611
23. WP 2069 of 2023.odt
1
IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY
NAGPUR BENCH AT NAGPUR
SECOND APPEAL NO.2069/2023
Municipal Council, Kanhan-Pipri through its Chief Officer, Kanhan-Pipri,
Tahsil - Parseoni, District Nagpur
...Versus...
Smt. Varsha wd/o Ravindra Urkude
- - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - --- -
Office Notes, Office Memoranda of Coram, Court's or Judge's orders
appearances, Court's orders or directions
and Registrar's orders
- - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - ----- ------------ -
Mr. D.M. Kale, Advocate for appellant
Mr. R.M. Bhongade, Advocate for respondent
CORAM : ROHIT W. JOSHI, J.
DATE : 22/09/2025
1. The respondent was appointed on the post of
Assistant Clerk with erstwhile Kanhan-Pipri Gram Panchayat
which was accorded a status of Municipal Council vide
notification dated 17/01/2014. The respondent was appointed
on the aforesaid post in the Gram Panchayat on 07/03/2012.
Her services were orally terminated w.e.f. 01/06/2015 by the
petitioner - Municipal Council.
2. The respondent therefore filed Complaint (ULP)
No.98/2016 challenging her termination. The said complaint
was allowed by the learned Judge Labour Court
No.3, Nagpur vide judgment and order dated 02/01/1919.
The learned labour Court has held that the petitioner -
Municipal Council had engaged in an unfair labour practice
under Item I Schedule IV of the Maharashtra Recognition of
Trade Unions and Prevention of Unfair Labour Practices Act,
1971 (for short hereinafter referred to as "MRTU and PULP
Act") and accordingly directed to reinstate the respondent in
service with continuity and full back wages.
23. WP 2069 of 2023.odt
3. The petitioner filed revision under Section 44 of
the MRTU and PULP Act challenging the said judgment. The
same came to be dismissed by the learned Member Industrial
Court No.3, Nagpur vide judgment and order dated
12/04/2022.
4. It will be pertinent to mention that before the
learned labour Court the petition was proceeded ex parte, as
contended by the learned Advocate for the petitioner and
without written statement, as contended by the learned
Advocate for the respondent. It is however not in dispute that
the matter was not contested on merits of the petitioner -
Municipal Council. In the revision filed before the learned
Industrial Court, the Municipal Council produced various
documents justifying its position.
5. The contention of the learned Advocate for the
petitioner is that it will not be correct to say that the services
of respondent were terminated. He states that while the Gram
Panchayat was accorded status of Municipal Council, the list of
employees was forwarded by the Gram Panchayat, Parseoni to
Administrator of the petitioner - Municipal Council in which
names of 61 employees were included for absorption of their
services with Municipal Council. It is submitted that since the
name of respondent did not find place in the said list, she was
not continued in service.
6.. Learned Advocate for respondent has drawn
attention of this Court to the said list to contend that the
employees from serial Nos.56 to 61 are junior to the
respondent. He draws attention to the employee at Serial
No.56 and contends that the said employee is shown to be
23. WP 2069 of 2023.odt
working on the post of Assistant Clerk, the date of initial
appointment being 01/11/2012.
7. The learned Advocate has drawn attention to
certificates at page No.42 and 43 issued by the petitioner -
Municipal Council. Perusal of certificate dated 25/09/2014
will demonstrate that the respondent was working on the post
of Assistant Clerk in Tax Department of the Municipal Council
from 07/03/2012 to 11/03/2013 on daily wages and
thereafter from 12/03/2013 to 16/01/2014 on fixed pay. The
certificate records that respondent was in service on
25/09/2014 i.e. date on which certificate was issued. Perusal
of certificate dated 26/02/2016 will further demonstrate that
the respondent was working on the said post as Assistant Clerk
from 17/01/2014. Although the certificate indicates that
respondent was in service as on the date of issuance of
certificate i.e. 26/02/2016, it is not in dispute that the services
of respondent were continued only up to 31/05/2015 and
from 01/06/2015 she is not in service.
8. There is no statement in the petition that the
respondent was in employment after 01/06/2015 onwards.
Learned Advocate for the petitioner contends that the person
whose name was forwarded by the Block Development Officer
has been retained in employment and since the name of the
respondent does not find place in the said list, she does not
have any right to claim employment. He therefore contends
that the petition deserves to be allowed.
9. Per contra, learned Advocate for the respondent
contends that the respondent has duly proved that she has
worked with the petitioner - Municipal Council for a period of
23. WP 2069 of 2023.odt
more than 240 days in two consecutive calendar years i.e.
from 07/01/2012 till 31/05/2015. Learned Advocate further
contends that at least one person is retained on the post of
Junior Clerk although he is junior to the respondent. He
further contends that respondent has requisite qualification for
being appointed on the post of Assistant Clerk.
10. Learned labour Court has allowed the complaint
on the ground that the evidence brought on record is sufficient
to prove that respondent was illegally terminated and that the
respondent has satisfied that she has worked for more than
240 days in a calendar year. In paragraph no.19, the learned
Industrial Court has specifically observed that it was not even
the case of petitioner that there was no post available for
appointing the respondent or that there was any claim
superior to that of the respondent.
11. In that view of the matter, no case for interference
is made out so far as relief of reinstatement in service with
continuity is granted.
12. The respondent has also filed affidavit stating that
she was not in gainful employment till date of termination of
services.
13. Perusal of the present petition so also the memo
of revision will indicate that there is no denial to the said
statement made on affidavit. In view of the above, the order of
back wages also does not call interference.
14. The writ petition is dismissed. No order as to
costs.
(ROHIT W. JOSHI, J.)
Wadkar
Signed by: S.S. Wadkar (SSW)
Designation: PS To Honourable Judge
Date: 23/09/2025 18:00:18
