1 CR.W.P.NO1543/2011 IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE OF BOMBAY BENCH AT AURANGABAD WRIT PETITION NO.1543 OF 2011 1. Marathwada Krushi Viddyapith, Parbhani, Through its Registrar. 2. Associate Dean & Principal, College of Technology, Parbhani. 3. Vice Chancellor, Marathwada Krushi Vidyapith, Parbhani. ....PETITIONERS VERSUS Mansurali s/o Rajabali, r/o Vishnu Jinning & Pressing Factory, Marathwada Krushi Vidyapith Road, Parbhani. ...RESPONDENTS ... Mr. Govindrao N.Shirsat & Mr. R.G.Tribhuwan, Advocates, for the petitioners. Mr. V.P.Kadam, Adv., for the sole respondent absent. ... CORAM: K.U.CHANDIWAL, J. DATE:NOVEMBER 11th, 2011 *** PER COURT : 1. Heard. 2. The respondent was a labour in the petitioner University. Inspite of being appointed as a labourer, he continuously worked as a Boiler 2 CR.W.P.NO1543/2011 Assistant from 1988 to 1999. He was asked to appear before a Selection Committee. Consequently, he appeared before the Selection Committee for the post of Boiler Assistant. He tendered his requisite papers to the authorities. However, by virtue of orders dt.14th Jan.,2000, the respondent was relegated to the post of Labour (Majur). The respondent pointed, since 1988, he acted/worked as Boiler Assistant. Inspite of respondent applying for the post of Boiler Assistant, he was shown to be selected or continued as Majur/labour but, even thereafter, the respondent was continued as Boiler Assistant. This is more so indicated in the letter dt. 31.10.2003 (Exh.R-5). Subsequent communication is dt.16.3.2006 ( Page No.83). Even this letter illustrated that he has been working as a Boiler Assistant owing to his utility and expertise in the field at the Food Technology College from 22.2.2001, but nominated as a labour. 3. Learned Judge, Industrial Court, allowed the petition of the respondent. In the review, the learned Member, Industrial Court, Jalna, by order dt.6.9.2010, did not change the text of the original order in Complaint (ULP) No.32/2008. 4. Though I find that the Selection Committee, in the year 1999, did not select the respondent as Boiler Assistant, however, he was 3 CR.W.P.NO1543/2011 continued, to act in the same category, for a longer duration and suddenly he was prohibited to do so. Consequently, the point of limitation that was raised by the petitioner is naturally and rightly negated by the learned Member as, all throughout, the respondent was making representations with the authorities and the matter was delayed, dragged on by the authorities. 5. Non compliance to Statute 84 of the Maharashtra Agricultural Univerities ( Krishi Vidyapeeths) Statute, 1990, is a risk carried by the University authorities and, probably, to dilute the said Statute 84, a ploy of carrying out interview in the year 1999 has been figured out. However, thereafter also, the respondent continued as Boiler Assistant. It is curious, Respondent was interviewed for Boiler Assistant but appointed as Majdoor (labour) without legal justification. 6. Though the learned Counsel for the University submits that the letter of one Mr.More, of Mantralaya, dt.6th Jan.,1999, to which reference was repeatedly given by the respondent, has not been genuinely proved. But said communication is even not disputed. However, the letter even if kept aside, will not dilute case of the respondent or his eligibility 4 CR.W.P.NO1543/2011 and entitlement to be continued in the post of Boiler Assistant. In this context, the observation of the learned Member, Industrial Court that the University (petitioner) played unfair labour practice against the respondent, is a correct view. The Respondent served as a Boiler Assistant from 1988 to 14.1.2000 and he should have been continued in the same position. I do not see any reason to interfere with the order dt.24.3.2009. However, it is clarified, during the period from 14th Jan.,2000, till passing of the order dt.24.3.2009, if the respondent has not worked as a Boiler Assistant, he shall not be eligible to receive the wages/salary in the said scale for such particular period. With the above clarification, writ petition is dismissed. (K.U.CHANDIWAL) JUDGE agp/1543-11wp