WP/4496/2010 1 IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY CIVIL APPELLATE JURISDICTION WRIT PETITION NO.4496 OF 2010 Kurduwadi Municipal Council, Solapur ..Petitioner V/s. Ashok Murlidhar Palange & Anr. ..Respondents Mr. A.H. Fatangare for the Petitioner. Mr. M.V. Chaugule for Respondent No.1. Mr. S.D. Rayrikar, AGP, for Respondent No.2. CORAM : SMT. NISHITA MHATRE, J. DATE : 6 TH SEPTEMBER, 2010. P.C. : 1. The Writ Petition has been filed, challenging the order passed by the Industrial Court, Solapur on 27th January, 2010 in Complaint (ULP) No.89 of 1994. The complaint filed by the respondents alleging unfair labour practices under Items 6 and 9 of Schedule IV of the Maharashtra Recognition of Trade Unions & Prevention of Unfair Labour Practices Act, (for short “the MRTU & PULP Act”), has been allowed. WP/4496/2010 2 2. The Industrial Court has directed the petitioner to confer the status and privileges of a permanent employee in the post of a “Peon” on the respondent No.1 from the date of completion of 2 years in the employment together with monetary benefits. The Industrial Court also considered the contention of the respondent No.1 that he had been terminated from service illegally and has held that the termination of services of the respondent No.1 was bad in law and that he was entitled to payment of back-wages. 3. It appears that the complaint was decided earlier against which order, Writ Petition No.3877 of 1997 was filed before this Court by the petitioner. By an order dated 3rd February, 2009, the complaint was remanded to the Industrial Court for a fresh hearing. This Court, while remanding the matter, directed the Industrial Court to adjudicate the matter afresh in accordance with WP/4496/2010 3 law. Parties were at liberty to amend their pleadings and to lead such evidence as may be advised on the aspects of: (a) the procedure for the appointment to the post of “Peon” at the relevant time; (b) the facts leading to the termination of the respondent No.1. The Industrial Court was also directed to enquire into the respondent No.1’s entitlement to back-wages. 4. The Industrial Court has concluded that the petitioner has indulged in an unfair labour practice under Items 6 and 9 of Schedule IV of the MRTU & PULP Act. The Court was of the view that, based on the evidence on record, all the procedure required to be followed for recruiting the respondent No.1 had been followed and therefore the contention of the petitioner that the respondent No.1 was appointed without following the proper procedure was not accepted. In fact, the Chief Officer of the petitioner, who was examined before WP/4496/2010 4 the Industrial Court, has stated in his cross- examination that he could not say whether the complainant, i.e. the respondent herein, was appointed by following proper procedure. Thus, there is no definite or categoric evidence on record to indicate that the respondent No.1 was not appointed by following the proper procedure. 5. The second issue as to whether facts leading to the termination of the respondent No.1 indicated that the termination of respondent No.1 from service was illegal, has been decided in favour of the respondent No.1 by the Industrial Court. The Industrial Court has observed that there is a G.R. dated 10th March, 1993 by which the Municipal Council was directed by the Government to regularize and absorb those workmen who were employed on daily rated wages. The Industrial Court has, therefore, found that the termination of services of the respondent No.1 during the pendency WP/4496/2010 5 of the complaint was illegal and had therefore granted him back-wages. 6. As regards back-wages, there is a pleading in the complaint that the respondent No.1 was unemployed from the date of termination of his services. The Industrial Court accepted this statement as there is no contrary evidence on record led by the petitioner. In these circumstances, in my view, there is no need to disturb the findings of the Industrial Court. 7. The Writ Petition is rejected. 8. In any event the petitioner has reinstated the respondent No.1-workman and he has been working there since 1997. According to the learned Advocate for the respondent No.1, he has also been confirmed in the said post.