1 100911 IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY CIVIL APPELLATE JURISDICTION WRIT PETITION NO. 1009 OF 2011 Ganesh Subhash Vetal & Ors. ...Petitioners V/s. State of Maharashtra & Anr. ...Respondents Mr. Sandeep Karnik i/by Mr. Ashok Khillare for the Petitioners Mr. A.B. Vagyani, A.G.P., for Respondent No. 1 Mr. Kiran Gandhi with Ms. Shyamali Gadre i/by M/s. Little & Co. for Respondent No. 2 CORAM: A.M. KHANWILKAR AND MRS.MRIDULA BHATKAR, JJ. DATE: 26TH APRIL, 2011 P.C.:- Rule. Rule is made returnable forthwith by consent. The learned A.G.P. for respondent No. 1 and Mr. Kiran Gandhi, learned counsel, for respondent No. 2 waive service. 2. As short question is involved, the petition is taken up for final disposal forthwith by consent. Heard the counsel for the parties. 2 100911 3. The petitioners have approached this Court by way of this writ petition under Article 226 of the Constitution of India, praying for diverse reliefs. 4. During the course of arguments, however, the petitioners have confined to the prayer to issue direction against the respondents, in particular respondent No.2, to extend the same benefit as has been granted by the Aurangabad Bench of our High Court to the petitioners in Writ Petition No. 4384 of 2008 decided on 7th October, 2009. By the said decision, the writ petition filed by the petitioners therein, who are, admittedly, similarly placed as that of the petitioners before this Court, came to be allowed, and direction was issued to the Corporation to confirm the service of the petitioners therein from the date on which each of them had successfully completed their probation period and grant them all benefits consequential to such confirmation. Such direction was necessitated, because the petitioners before the Aurangabad Bench, who were selected through properly constituted Selection Committee and following due selection process, though were appointed by the Corporation on probation, but they were not confirmed in the said service. The reason mentioned by the Corporation before the High Court was that the Corporation was unable to confirm the petitioners on 3 100911 account of order passed by the Industrial Court, Mumbai, dated 6th June, 2005 on a complaint filed by the Union, for and on behalf of the daily wagers. The said contention of the Corporation has been rejected by this Court while allowing the said writ petition. 5. Significantly, the correctness of the said reason was put in issue by the Union by filing Special Leave Petition before the Apex Court. However, the said Special Leave Petition has been dismissed on 1st April, 2010. In that sense, the decision of the Aurangabad Bench dated 7th October, 2009 in Writ Petition No. 4384 of 2008 has become final, and the Corporation would be obliged to comply the direction contained therein. It is not in dispute that the Corporation has already acted upon the said decision, insofar as the petitioners in Writ Petition No. 4384 of 2008. The petitioners in the present petition were not named as parties in the said writ petition. As a result, the Corporation has proceeded on the assumption that the relief granted in Writ Petition No. 4384 of 2008 would be limited to the petitioners in the said writ petition; and cannot be extended to others, as the order of the Industrial Court would operate with regard to other candidates, though similarly placed. 4 100911 6. In this backdrop, the petitioners have approached before us by way of present writ petition. 7. Having considered the arguments of both sides, we have no hesitation in taking the view that, since the petitioners are similarly placed as that of the petitioners in Writ Petition No. 4384 of 2008 filed before the Aurangabad Bench of the High Court, the present petitioners should also succeed on the same terms, more particularly because the reasons recorded by the Aurangabad Bench in decision dated 7th October, 2009 have been confirmed by the Apex Court. 8. Accordingly, we allow the present writ petition, and direct the Corporation to confirm the services of the petitioners and similarly placed persons, who are not petitioners in the present petition, from the date on which each of them have successfully completed their probation period, and grant them all benefits consequential to such confirmation. This direction has been issued, as, in our opinion, the Corporation is bound by the decision of the Aurangabad Bench of the High Court, and more so, because of the Supreme Court Order dated 1st April, 2010, rejecting the Special Leave Petition filed by the Union, for and on behalf of daily wagers, who were complainants in Complaint (ULP) No. 57 of 5 100911 2005 before the Industrial Court at Mumbai. In other words, the efficacy of the decision of the Industrial Court, Mumbai, dated 6th June, 2005 cannot be an impediment for the Corporation to confirm the persons similarly placed as that of the petitioners in the writ petition before the Aurangabad Bench of the High Court or, for that matter, this Court, who have been selected following due selection process. 9. This petition is allowed on the above terms. The Rule is made absolute. MRS. MRIDULA BHATKAR, J. A.M. KHANWILKAR, J.