ARJUN PITAMBAR BADGUJAR v. DHULE MUNICIPAL CORPORATION DHULE THROUGH MUNCIPAL COMMISSIONER AND ANOTHER AND
Case Details
11433.19wp etc (1) IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY BENCH AT AURANGABAD 902 WRIT PETITION NO.11433 OF 2019 ARJUN PITAMBAR BADGUJAR VERSUS DHULE MUNICIPAL CORPORATION DHULE THROUGH MUNCIPAL COMMISSIONER AND ANOTHER AND 903 WRIT PETITION NO.13562 OF 2019 SHAIKH HYDER SHAIKH IBRAHIM VERSUS DHULE MUNICIPAL CORPORATION, DHULE THROUGH MUNICIPAL COMMISSIONER AND ANOTHER AND 904 WRIT PETITION NO.14508 OF 2019 MADHUKAR VISHWANATH BHAT VERSUS DHULE MUNICIPAL CORPORATION, DHULE THROUGH MUNICIPAL COMMISSIONER AND ANOTHER AND 906 WRIT PETITION NO.2895 OF 2020 SHIVAJI SOPAN CHOUGULE VERSUS DHULE MUNICIPAL CORPORATION DHULE AND ANOTHER AND 907 WRIT PETITION NO.5317 OF 2020 GAYABAI ANANDA GHADGE VERSUS DHULE MUNICIPAL CORPORATION & ANR. AND 11433.19wp etc (2) 908 WRIT PETITION NO.1515 OF 2021 ASHALATA VIJAY PINGLE VERSUS DHULE MUNICIPAL CORPORATION AND ANOTHER AND WRIT PETITION NO.1518 OF 2021 MAGAN PUNA PAWAR VERSUS DHULE MUNICIPAL CORPORATION AND ANOTHER AND WRIT PETITION NO.1504 OF 2021 RAJANI HARISHCHANDRA HIRE VERSUS DHULE MUNICIPAL CORPORATION AND ANOTHER AND WRIT PETITION NO.1517 OF 2021 VAMAN GARBAD PATIL VERSUS DHULE MUNICIPAL CORPORATION AND ANOTHER AND WRIT PETITION NO.1520 OF 2021 SUNANDA RAGHUNATH LAHANE VERSUS DHULE MUNICIPAL CORPORATION AND ANOTHER AND 910 WRIT PETITION NO.7731 OF 2021 BANO BEE MUNNA SHAIKH VERSUS DHULE MUNICIPAL CORPORATION THR ITS COMMISSIONER AND ANOTHER 11433.19wp etc (3) AND WRIT PETITION NO.1680 OF 2023
Legal Reasoning
SMT. INDUBAI SUKLAL CHAVAN VERSUS DHULE MUNICIPAL CORPORATION, THR ITS COMMISSIONER AND ANOTHER AND WRIT PETITION NO.8789 OF 2019 SMT. RAJANI VIJAY KAKADE VERSUS DHULE MUNICIPAL CORPORATION, THR ITS COMMISSIONER AND ANOTHER …. Mr Ajay S. Deshpande, Advocate for petitioners; Mr S. K. Tambe, Mr S. G. Karlekar, Mr S. G. Sangle, A.G.Ps. for respondents/State in respective petitions Mr Amol S. Sawant, Advocate for respondent No.1 in WP Nos.11433/19 AND 13562/19 Mr N. N. Desale, Advocate for respondent No.1 in WP Nos.14508/19, 7731/21 & 8789/19, 8789/19 Mr A. V. Hon, Advocate for respondent No.1 in WP No.5317/20 Mr S. P. Shah, Advocate for respondent No.1 in WP Nos.1515/21, 1518,/21, 1504/21, 1517/21 & 1520/21 CORAM : RAVINDRA V. GHUGE AND SANJAY A. DESHMUKH, JJ. DATE : 10th February, 2023 PER COURT: 1. We have considered the submissions of the learned Advocates for the petitioners, the learned A.G.Ps. appearing for 11433.19wp etc (4) the State and the learned advocates on behalf of the respondent/Dhule Municipal Corporation. 2. Considering the order that we are passing, we are not adverting to their entire submissions. Suffice it to say that, these are the petitioners, who have earlier approached the learned Industrial Court, by preferring Complaint (ULP) under Section 28(1) of the Maharashtra Recognition of Trade Unions and Prevention of Unfair Labour Practices Act, 1971. Judgments in each of these cases have been delivered by the learned Industrial Court. Vide the said judgments, which are practically identical, each of the complainants have been granted permanency w.e.f. the date mentioned in the respective operative part of the said judgments. The Dhule Municipal Corporation preferred Writ Petition No.3637/2021 before the learned Single Judge Bench of this Court for challenging the judgments, which were delivered between 1994 to 1997. Considering the delay of almost 20 to 25
Decision
years, the learned Single Judge dismissed the writ petition vide order dated 24/02/2021. 3. It is pointed out by the petitioners that the Dhule Municipal Corporation had passed a Resolution bearing Resolution No.124 11433.19wp etc (5) dated 30/12/2020 on the Subject No.92. The last paragraph of the Resolution which is at page Nos.68 and 69 of the petition paper book, reads as under :- सतावा नुसार मे. उकत कारारलरीन iz “ नरारालराचे आदेशा नुसार कारररत 8 महानगरपागलका iz औरंगाबाद रेथे अगपल दाखल करणरात आले आहे . औदोगगक / कामगार २ कमरचाऱरांचे iz करणी उचच नरारालर खंडपीठ सदर iz शासना तरर मे . करणी मे . करणी तराची कमरचाऱरांचे iz २ कमरचाऱरां iz माणे महानगरपागलका २ कमरचाऱरांचे iz शासनाने काररवाही करावी. गनणरर देईल तरा iz उचच नरारालर जो iz तसेच २८ मुळ गनरु कती व सेवा कालावधी ८ माणे असुन २८ कमरचाऱरांची नरारालरात अथवा कु ठलराही सकम izk गधकरणाकडे तथापी मनपा सेवेमधरे सथाई सेवेत समागवषट दाद मागगतलेली नाही. करणे बाबत तरांनी सतत गवनंती व पाठपु रावा के लेला आहे . तरामुळे २ कमरचाऱरांचरा बाबतीत घेतला जाणारा गनणरर नैसगगरक नराराचरा ८ कमरचाऱरांना लागु करणे हे dz म izkIr व रारदेशीर दृषटीने सुधदा २८ आहे व मनपाचे गहताचेसुधदा आहे . ८ करणी मे उचच नरारालर जो गनणरर देईल, सदर ठरावाची काररवाही करतांना iz गबंदु नामावली शैकगणक पा+= करणी लागु शासनाने iz शासकीर ता ई बाबी तपासून धुळे मंजुर व गरकत असलेलरा पदावर सेवाजरेषठते नुसार राहील. बाबी महानगरपागलक k सामावुन घेवुन तरांची सेवा पु वरलकी iz भावाने धरणरास ततवतः मानरता देणरात रेत आहे . सदर ठरावाचा लाभ के वळ सदगसथतीत मे . नरारालराचे आदेशा नुसार कारररत आदेशा नुसार कारररत ८ ६ व अनर आदेशा नुसार मंजुर नसलेलरा पदावर रं टातील कारररत २८ कमरचाऱरांना देणरात रावा. iz नरारालराचरा आदेशा नुसार सेवा पूवरलकी iz मागील कोणताही ररक देर होणार नाही, भावाने धरावी लागत असलरास तरांना तरा बाबत iz शासनाने कमरचाऱरांचे iz तो रा २८ सतु त iz करणी मे 11433.19wp etc (6) संबंधीतांकडु न तसे बंधप= सनमा. सदर iz सदसरांना सहमतीने मानरता देणरात रेत आहे .” गलहु न घेणरात रावे. सतावास सवर 4. The learned Advocates representing the Municipal Corporation submit on the basis of the record that, the judgments delivered by the Industrial Court, in some of these cases, were never challenged. Those judgments which were challenged, led to the dismissal of the Writ Petition, vide order dated 24/02/2021. These petitioners can prefer individual representation setting forth the details of their employments and their litigation journey, with the accompanying documents. Each representations, along with the documents, would be treated as independent representation by the Corporation and the same would be considered on it’s merits. 5. In one batch of employees, who had preferred Writ Petition No.1593/2014, a judgment has been delivered by this Court [Coram : Prasanna B. Varale (as His Lordship then was) and Manish Pitale, JJ.], dated 26/10/2018. It is informed that the view expressed in the said judgment is confirmed by the Hon’ble Supreme Court. It is after delivery of this judgment, that the Resolution No.124, dated 30/12/2020 on Subject No.92 was passed by the Municipal Corporation. 11433.19wp etc (7) 6. We find that the law is now crystallized in view of the judgments of this Court delivered in Mukhyadhikari Nagar Parishad, Tuljapur Vs. Vishal Vijay Amrutrao, 2015 (5) Mh.L.J. 75 and the judgment delivered by the Larger Bench of this Court in the matter of Municipal Council, Tirora Vs. Tulsidas Baliram Bindhade, 2016 (6) Mh.L.J. 867, concluding that proposals of such persons have to be considered by the appropriate authorities and depending upon the vacancies available, deemed dates of permanency/regularization can be granted. Moreover, when this Municipal Corporation has already dealt with identically placed employees, who had also approached the learned Industrial Court and some who had not approached any Court, these petitioners also deserve to be treated in the similar way. Deferential treatment cannot given to these petitioners. 7. The learned Advocate for the petitioners submits that Tarachand Harchand Pawar (W.P. No.780/2023), considering the order passed by this Court on 23/01/2023, desires to approach to the Municipal Corporation as like the above petitioners with a representation. 11433.19wp etc (8) 8. In view of the above, all these petitions are disposed off, with liberty to the petitioners to tender their individual representations along with accompanying documents. The Corporation would consider the said cases in the light of the Resolution No. 124, as like the similarly situated employees. If these individual representations are delivered to the Corporation on or before 28/02/2023, let the exercise as directed above, be concluded on or before 31/05/2023. Thereafter, the Corporation would pass individual orders in each of these cases, justifying it’s conclusions with reasons. (SANJAY A. DESHMUKH, J.) (RAVINDRA V. GHUGE, J.) sjk