( 1 ) IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE OF BOMBAY BENCH AT AURANGABAD WRIT PETITION NO. 5068 OF 1998 1. Amalner Municipal Council, Amalner, through its Chief Officer. 2. Amalner Municipal Council, Amalner, through its President. 3. Amalner Municipal Council, Amalner. PETITIONERS VERSUS Raghunath s/o Rambhau More, Near School No. 25, Parshi Road, Amalner, District Jalgaon. RESPONDENT ..... Mr. L.V. Sangir, advocate holding for Mr. V.J. Dixit, Senior Counsel, for the petitioners. Mr. S.A. Kulkarni, advocate for the respondent. ..... [CORAM : V.R. KINGAONKAR, J.] [DATE : 11th June, 2010] ORAL JUDGEMENT : 1. By this petition, the petitioners challenge judgement and order rendered by the Member of Industrial court, Nasik in Complaint (ULP) No. 949/1991. By that judgement, the complaint application of the respondent was ( 2 ) allowed and the petitioners were directed to refrain from committing unfair labour practices as contemplated under Items 5, 6 and 9 of Schedule-IV of the Maharashtra Recognition of Trade Unions and Prevention of Unfair Labour Practices Act, 1971 (for short, “the MRTU & PULP Act”). 2. The respondent filed complaint application before the Industrial Court on the basis of following averments : (a) That, he was appointed as a Sweeper in 1983 and was continuously working with the petitioner – Municipal Council from 1983 till 1990. He had worked for more than 240 days and was entitled to seek benefit of permanency. However, he was not granted benefit of permanency; (b) The juniors appointed by the petitioner were absorbed as permanent employees, but the claim of the respondent was not considered; (c) The respondent was denied benefit of agreement between the workers’ union and the petitioner; (d) Though there was vacant post of driver, yet, claim of the petitioner was not considered though he holds regular driving licence; and (e) The petitioner – Municipal Council was not adhering ( 3 ) to the award passed in Reference (IT) No. 283/1966. The respondent, therefore, alleged that the petitioner committed unfair labour practices and denied him benefit of permanency. The petitioner resisted the complaint application by filing written statement on various grounds. 3. Though several dates were granted and adjournments were given in order to facilitate the petitioners to produce relevant record and documentary evidence, yet, the petitioner failed to produce such documents. The Industrial Court directed the petitioner to produce relevant record including the record pertaining to payments made to the respondent. The petitioner did not comply with such directions. The respondent gave evidence on basis of affidavit. The respondent also produced certain record. The respondent pointed out that one Jagat Onkar Sapkale was the municipal councilor and his two sons by name Prabhakar and another were appointed on permanent post. The respondent produced relevant record to show that he had worked for more than 240 days. The respondent thus made out an acceptable case. No rebuttal evidence was adduced by the petitioners. It appears that the petitioners did not participate in the proceedings before the Industrial Court. ( 4 ) There is no explanation given as to why the petitioners failed to participate in the proceedings and prove the contentions raised in the written statement. Under these circumstances, the impugned judgement and order rendered by the Industrial Court need not be interfered with. The only portion of the impugned order at serial No. 4 in the final order is, however per se illegal. The Industrial Court directed the petitioners to appoint the respondent w.e.f. 01-01-1996 on post of driver. It is an admitted fact that the respondent is not yet appointed on that post nor such post is vacant. The respondent is still working as a Sweeper. Hence, it will have to be said that such direction of the Industrial Court is illegal and unsustainable. 4. In the result, the petition fails and is dismissed on merits. The impugned direction shown under clause (4) of the final order regarding mandate to issue appointment letter to the respondent for his appointment on post of driver is set aside. No costs. [V.R. KINGAONKAR] JUDGE NPJ/wp5068-98