1 Bsb IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY CIVIL APPELLATE JURISDICTION WRIT PETITION NO. 5124 OF 1998 Malegaon Municipal Council ... Petitioner (Ori. Respondent) v/s 1. Rajendra Govind Jadhav 2. Mr.P.B.Akolkar, Member Industrial Court, Nashik. ... Respondents Mr.A.V.Bukhari for the petitioner. Mr.M.S.Karnik for respondent No.1. CORAM: SMT.NISHITA MHATRE, J. DATED: 15TH JUNE, 2010 ORAL JUDGMENT: 1. The present petition has been filed against the order of the Industrial Court, Nashik, dated 2.7.1996. By this order, the Industrial Court allowed the complaint by declaring that the petitioner has engaged in unfair labour practices under Item 9 of Schedule IV of the Maharashtra Recognition of Trade Unions and Prevention of Unfair Labour Practices Act, 1971 (in short, “M.R.T.U. & P.U.L.P. Act”). The Industrial Court, strangely, then directed the respondent to reinstate 2 the complainant, respondent No.1 herein, and to get the complainant’s name recommended from the Employment Exchange/State Selection Board. 2. The facts in the present case are not in dispute. The respondent was engaged as a sanitary inspector on being issued an appointment letter dated 4.12.1991. His services were terminated on 9.1.1992. Thus, having worked for 32 days, the respondent’s services were terminated. Being aggrieved by that order, the respondent filed Complaint (ULP) No. 12 of 1992 before the Labour Court under Items 1(a), (b), (d), (f) and (g) of Schedule IV of the M.R.T.U. & P.U.L.P. Act. The application for interim relief filed by him was rejected on 15.5.1992. He then preferred a revision application and sought interim relief. That application was disposed of on 7.12.1995. The complaint ultimately was dismissed on 16.1.1997. Admittedly, the respondent has not challenged the order passed dismissing his complaint. 3. While Complaint (ULP) No.12 of 1992 was pending, the respondent No.1 preferred Complaint (ULP) No.43 of 1992 alleging that the petitioner had committed unfair labour practices under Items 5, 6, 9 and 10 of Schedule IV of the M.R.T.U. & P.U.L.P. Act. According to the respondent, the 3 award dated 29.4.1997 passed by the Industrial Tribunal in Reference (IT) No.31 of 1983 had not been implemented. He, therefore, contended that he should be confirmed as a sanitary inspector in the vacant post. Evidence was led by the respondent No.1 in which he admitted that his services were terminated and that he had therefore filed Complaint (ULP) No.12 of 1992 which was pending. He also admitted that the interim relief sought by him in the aforesaid complaint had been rejected. 4. The Industrial Court vide the impugned order dated 2.7.1996 held that the petitioner had committed an unfair labour practice under Item 9 of Schedule IV of the M.R.T.U. & P.U.L.P. Act. The Industrial Court was aware of the fact that the services of the respondent No.1 had been terminated and that he had not obtained any interim relief continuing him in service. Despite this, the Industrial Court directed that the respondent should be reinstated in service and that the petitioner should ensure that the respondent No.1’s name was recommended by the Employment Exchange/State Selection Board so that he is appointed in the vacant post of sanitary inspector. A further direction was given to the petitioner to employ the respondent No.1 permanently since a post was vacant. 4 5. In my view, the Industrial Court has completely erred in passing the impugned order. The relief claimed in the present complaint could not have been granted unless the workman was in service. Admittedly, the respondent No.1 workman had been terminated from service on 9.1.1992 and had failed to obtain any relief from the Labour Court. Both the Labour Court and the Industrial Court in revision had denied him the interim relief as a result of which his termination of service continued. In fact, the complaint itself has been dismissed in the year 1997 after passing of the impugned order. 6. In my opinion, therefore, the Industrial Court has seriously erred in deciding the complaint by directing the petitioner to reinstate the complainant. 7. Accordingly, the writ petition is allowed. 8. Rule made absolute in terms of prayer clause (a). 9. No order as to costs. ..... 5 6