TY MUNICIPAL CORPORATION, LATUR DIST. LATURVERSUSKASHINATH SHIVAPPA RAJNALEMr. H v. Patil
Legal Reasoning
IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAYBENCH AT AURANGABADWRIT PETITION NO. 2518 OF 1998THE COMMISSIONER, LATUR CITY MUNICIPAL CORPORATION, LATUR DIST. LATURVERSUSKASHINATH SHIVAPPA RAJNALEMr. H. V. Patil, Advocate for petitionerMr. R. R. Deshmukh h/f Mr. R. B. Deshmukh Advocate for respondent.CORAM: R. M. JOSHI, J.DATE: 21st NOVEMBER, 2024PER COURT :-1.This petition takes exception to judgment and order dated14.08.1996 passed in Complaint (ULP) No. 324 of 1992 whereby theIndustrial Court, Solapur has directed the petitioner to confer the statusand privileges of permanent employee to the respondent / complainantin the post of Compounder on completion of 240 days of his servicecommencing from 01.01.1965. Further, direction is issued to pay allmonetary benefits with retrospective effect.2.The petitioner is Latur City Municipal Corporation. It is thecase of the petitioner that the respondent / original complainant was anemployee of Municipal Corporation with effect from 01.12.1964 in thepost of ‘Compounder’ Pune at hospital run by the Corporation. It isclaimed that he was drawing wages in the pay scale of Rs. 200/- to Rs.901.WP.2518.19.odt1 of 6 280/- per month. The respondent / complainant filed complaint (ULP)before the Industrial Court bearing No. 324 /1992 claiming that witheffect 01.01.1965 the then Medical Officer of the Council, by his oralorder, has asked the complainant to render services in the post ofcompounder in the Pay Scale of Rs.260 /- to Rs. 495 /- per month. It ishis contention that though he performed the said work from 01.06.1965to 31.09.1985, he was not paid the salary for the said post. With theseaverments, complaint came to be filed alleging that the Municipal Councilhas committed unfair labour practices as contemplated by Item 5 and 6of Schedule IV of the Maharashtra Recognition of Trade Unions andPrevention of Unfair Labour Practices Act, 1971 (For Short “MRTP & PULPAct” ).3.In this complaint, a notice was issued to the petitioner/original respondent. Though, through an Advocate, petitioner causeappearance, however, failed to contest the complaint. As a result of this,the complaint came to be allowed after about 4 years of its filing i.e., on04.08.1996.4.This petition is filed with the contention that therespondent/workman was not qualified/eligible to be appointed as a‘Compounder’ and as such, he cannot seek any benefit of the said post.Though, such the contention is sought to be advanced on merit, there is901.WP.2518.19.odt2 of 6
Legal Reasoning
absolutely no pleadings in the petition, as to the reason for which thepetitioner Municipal Corporation could not contest the complaint beforethe Industrial Court at relevant time.5.Learned counsel for the petitioner vehemently submitted thatthe order passed by the Industrial Court is contrary to the law settled bythe Hon’ble Supreme Court in case of Secretary, State of Karnatakaand others Vs. Umadevi and Others, (2006) 4 SCC 1. It is hiscontention that grant of any such relief of permanency in the post ofCompounder would amount to a back door entry given to thecomplainant, which is not permissible in law. It is his submission that onthis count alone, the present proceedings deserves to be relegated backto the Industrial Court for decision afresh. He also contends that he wasdirected to work as a Compounder from 01.06.1965, however, thecomplaint is filed after about 20 years. Thus, on this count also thecomplaint was not entertainable. According to him since the complaintwas not contested, it is fit case to relegate the same to the IndustrialCourt for decision afresh. 6.Learned counsel for the respondent supported the impugnedorder by contending that it is not the case wherein petitioner MunicipalCouncil/Corporation was not served with the notice by the IndustrialCourt. It is his contention that even in the petition, there is no901.WP.2518.19.odt3 of 6 explanation given as to the reason for which the complaint was notcontested. He drew attention of the Court to the findings of the IndustrialCourt wherein complainant about he being asked to perform the duties ofCompounder-cum-Clerk and he having performing said duties till 1985.It would his contention that there are limitations to workman to raisedispute with regard to the non payment for the posts and as complaint isfiled after a specific period of time & the complaint cannot be rejected onthis sole ground.7.It is a case of the petitioner that the complainant was notqualified to be appointed as a ‘Compounder’ and, therefore, hispermanency in the said post is contrary to judgment of the Hon’bleSupreme Court in case of Secretary, State of Karnataka (citedsupra). In this regard, it is pertinent to note that there is no disputeabout the fact that the respondent/workman was in the regularemployment of Municipal Corporation much prior to he being asked towork as ‘Compounder’. Thus, this is not the case wherein backdoor entryis sought to be taken in the employment. Thus, in considered andrespectful view of this Court, the judgment in case of Secretary, Stateof Karnataka (cited supra) does not support the contentions ofpetitioner.8.At the first blush, this Court found submissions made on901.WP.2518.19.odt4 of 6 behalf of petitioner for relegating back the proceedings to the trial Courtworthy of consideration, however, having considered the facts andcircumstances of the case in detail, this case is not found to be fit for re-hearing. The reason for not doing so, is that, the Complaint is filed in theyear 1992, and it was decided in the year 1996. Whereas we are in theyear 2024. Further, admittedly, the erstwhile Municipal Council has nowbeen merged in the Municipal Corporation. As such, after a lapse ofperiod of 32 years, practically it may not be possible for the parties tocontest the said proceedings afresh. Moreover, prejudice and irreparableloss will be caused to the respondent/workman that he will be calledupon to undergo rigors of the litigation once again and that there is noguarantee, owing to the pendency of cases at all levels of the judicialsystem that he will get any relief during his lifetime. He has alreadyattained age of superannuation. This Court, therefore, is not inclined torelegate the matter back too. Apart from this, there is no just andsufficient reason given by the petitioner for its non appearance beforeIndustrial Court. If the petitioner has chosen not to appear and contestthe complaint, it is responsible for the consequences i.e., the orderpassed by the Court.9.It is pertinent to note that though it is claimed by thepetitioner that the complainant was not holding requisite qualification to901.WP.2518.19.odt5 of 6 be appointed as ‘Compounder’, but the said work has been extractedfrom him by employer over a period of 20 years. Thus, in any event atleast on the principle of equal pay equal work and on parity he is entitledfor benefits of the said post. 10.The contention of the petitioner has gone unchallenged. Thelearned Industrial Court, therefore, had no other option but to accept thesaid contention. In the peculiar facts of the case, this Court does notwish to cause any interference in impugned order or relegate matterback to the Industrial Court for reconsideration. Hence, petition isdismissed as it sans merits. (R. M. JOSHI, J.)bsj901.WP.2518.19.odt6 of 6