Smt. Poonam v. Bodke Patil
Case Details
Ethape( 1 ) WP-13710-13660-2023IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAYBENCH AT AURANGABADWRIT PETITION NO. 13710 OF 20231. Divisional ControllerMaharashtra State Road Transport CorporationDivisional Office, Latur. 2. General Manager,MSRTC Central Office,Maharashtra State Road Transport CorporationMaharashtra Vahatuk BhavanMumbai-400 008.….PETITIONERS VERSUS1. Shivraj Jagannath Kamble,Age: 38 years, Occu: Service,R/o. Shivpur, Tq. Shirur Anantpal, Tq. Udgir, Dist. Latur. ….RESPONDENTWITHWRIT PETITION NO.13660 OF 20231. Divisional ControllerMaharashtra State Road Transport CorporationDivisional Office, Latur. 2. General Manager,MSRTC Central Office,Maharashtra State Road
Legal Reasoning
Ethape( 2 ) WP-13710-13660-2023Transport CorporationMaharashtra Vahatuk BhavanMumbai-400 008.….PETITIONERS VERSUS1. Mahesh Bhanudas PolkarAge: 36 years, Occu: Service,R/o. Hanuman Nagar,Near Kumbharbad, Udgir,Tq. Udgir, Dist. Latur.….RESPONDENTMr. D. S. Bagul, Advocate for the petitioners in both W.P.Mr. Mangesh G. Patil h/f Mr. A. S. Male, Advocate for Respondent inWP/13710/2023.Smt. Poonam V. Bodke Patil, Adv. for Respondent in WP/13660/2023.CORAM:KISHORE C. SANT, J.RESERVED ON:5th MARCH 2025PRONOUNCED ON:9th APRIL 2025ORDER :-1.Heard the learned Advocates for the respective parties.2.The point involved in both these writ petitions is the same andfacts are also similar and, therefore, both the petitions are taken uptogether with consent of the parties, for final disposal. Ethape( 3 ) WP-13710-13660-20233.The petitioners, in both these writ petitions, have approached thisCourt challenging the judgment and order dated 12th April 2023 inComplaint (ULP) No.22 of 2017, as well as judgment and order dated 4thMarch, 2023 in Complaint (ULP) No.42 of 2016, passed by the learnedMember, Industrial Court, Latur, thereby allowing both complaints filedby the present respondents. 4.The petitioner No.1 is the Corporation and Petitioner No.2 is theGeneral Manager. The Respondent in both the writ petitions are theemployees working in petitioner’s Corporation. The respondentsapproached the Industrial Court, Latur by filing ULP Complaints underSection 28 (1) r/w Item No.5 and 9 of the Schedule IV of theMaharashtra Recognition of Trade Unions and Prevention of UnfairLabour Practices Act, 1971 (for short “MRTU and PULP Act”) which areallowed. FASTS IN WRIT PETITION NO. 13710 OF 20235.It is the case of the Respondent-employee that, he was appointedon compassionate ground in place of his father on 3rd November 2004. Ethape( 4 ) WP-13710-13660-2023It is his case that, he was eligible to be appointed to the post of TrafficController. However, as the said post was not available, he wasappointed as Conductor. At the relevant time, there was a policy of theCorporation to give appointment to the post of Traffic Controller/Clerkby calling applications from Conductors who are desirous. TheCorporation also issued a circular bearing No.21 of 2006 dated 24thAugust 2006 to that effect. Since the respondent was eligible to beappointed to the said post, he filed an application. However, he is notappointed to the said post. Thereafter, Petitioner No.2 also issued onemore circular dated 18th November 2008 bearing No.486-E/5111. Inview of said circular, it was decided to give an appointment to a personto the post of Traffic Controller, those who have joined as a Conductorfor want of vacancy to the post of Traffic Controller/Clerk. Though therespondent made an application on 28th September 2000, still he is notgiven an appointment to the higher post. Thus, one more circular issuedon 1st December 2011 bearing No.486-E/5684. In view of clause (4) ofthe said circular, the respondent was entitled to get an appointment tofurther post. He thus, filed a complaint stating that, not giving posting Ethape( 5 ) WP-13710-13660-2023as Traffic Controller/Clerk, would amount to violation of circular andbreach of Item Nos.5 and 9 of Schedule-IV of the MRTU & PULP Act. FACT IN WRIT PETITION NO.13660 OF 20236.It is the case of Respondent-employee that, his father was workingas a Clerk. His father was discharged from services as medically unfit.The application was, therefore, made appointment by the respondent-complainant as a Conductor on compassionate ground. He was having aqualification of Bachelor of Art and was eligible to be appointed asTraffic Controller/Clerk. The Divisional Controller had forwarded theinformation of eligible candidates on 21st September 2006, whichincludes the name of Respondent-complainant. However, still he was notconsidered. 7.It is the case in both the writ petitions that, one Conductor namely,Ram Anandrao Rokde, who was appointed on 9th July 2003, isreclassified as a Clerk-cum-Typist. 8.The learned Member, Industrial Court proceeded with the Ethape( 6 ) WP-13710-13660-2023complaint and allowed the complaint. The petitioners-Corporation have,therefore, approached this Court challenging the impugned judgmentand order. 9.The learned Advocate for the Petitioner-Corporation vehementlyargued that the respondents had applied for the post of Conductor. Now,they cannot claim the higher post. When the Respondents wereappointed posts of Traffic Controller/Clerk were not available and,therefore, the Respondents on their own made an application forappointment to the post of Conductor. Learned Member, Industrial Courthas committed an error by allowing the application. The promotioncould have been given only to a person who fulfill the criteria as percircular dated 1st December 2011. In any case, he submits that the saidcircular was issued only as a one-time measure and cannot be madeapplicable in all the cases. He submits that, the learned Member,Industrial Court failed to appreciate this fact and had arrived at wrongconclusion and has passed the order which needs to be quashed and setaside. He invites attention to clause (1) to (4) and (7) of circular dated Ethape( 7 ) WP-13710-13660-20231st December 2011 and submits that, the respondents were not entitledto get any relief.10.The learned Advocate for the Respondents vehemently argued thatthe application was filed for the post of Conductor specifically for thereason that no post of Traffic Controller/Clerk were available. When therespondents were eligible in view of the circular, they could not havebeen appointed to the post of Traffic Controller/Clerk. The learnedMember, Industrial Court has rightly passed the order considering that insimilar case of Ram Rokde’ rectification of post was done. By thesubsequent circular, the earlier circular is kept intact except minorchanges. The policy of giving an appointment was the same. Complaint(ULP) No. 102 of 2010 (Ram Mohan Suryawanshi) and Complaint(ULP) No.129 of 2012 (Balaji Nagnath Jadhav) had already beendecided by the Industrial Court in favour of employees. In such cases,complaints were allowed and the employees were reclassified. He thussubmits that, no interference is required in the judgment. Ethape( 8 ) WP-13710-13660-202311.This Court has gone through the submissions and the judgmentpassed by the learned Member, Industrial Court, Latur. In the case ofRam Rokde Vs. Vibhag Niyantrak and Anr. passed by this court in WritPetition No.11084 of 2017 on 4th July 2018, this Court had directed thelearned Industrial Court to consider the claim of a person like presentrespondents on its own merit by restoring the complaint that wasdismissed earlier. The learned Industrial Court considered the earlierorders passed by this Court. It is also considered that some of thesimilarly situated persons have been given the benefit of reclassification.The Court considered that the Respondents were qualified to hold thepost of Clerk/Traffic Controller. They have completed five years as aConductor. Circular dated 18th November 2008 was considered. It isfurther considered that the respondents had reclassified. The employeesin the case of Ram Mohan Suryawanshi (supra) and Balaji NagnathJadhav (supra) pursuant to the order passed by this Court in WritPetition No.11084 of 2017 and allowed the complaints. This Court doesnot find any illegality committed by the learned Member, IndustrialCourt Latur. No case is made out calling for interference at the hands of
Decision
Ethape( 9 ) WP-13710-13660-2023this Court in the impugned order passed by the Industrial Court. ThisCourt finds that there is no merit in the writ petitions and the samedeserves to be dismissed. Hence, the following order:ORDER(i)Writ petitions stand dismissed.(ii)No order as to costs.(iii)Pending Civil Applications, if any, also stand disposed off.[KISHORE C. SANT, J.]