1 WP380/07 IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY APPELLATE SIDE, BENCH AT AURANGABAD WRIT PETITION NO. 381 OF 2007 1 The State of Maharashtra, Through Executive Engineer, E.G.S. (P.W.D.) Division, Dhule Petitioners 2 The Sub Divisional Engineer, Public Works Department, Shindkheda, District Dhule V E R S U S Ashok Namdeo Marathe, Aged 35 years, Occupation Nil, Resident of Shindkheda, District Dhule. Respondent Mr. N.H. Borade, A.G.P. for the petitioners Mr. S.P. Brahme, Advocate for the respondent CORAM : A.V. NIRGUDE, J. DATED : 25th March, 2011 ORAL JUDGMENT 1. This writ petition is filed against successive orders passed by the learned Judge of the Labour Court, Dhule, in complaint (ULP) No. 84 of 2001, dated 13th March, 2002 and by the learned Member of Industrial Court, Jalgaon, in revision (ULP) No. 44 of 2002, dated 20th June, 2003. The facts leading to this litigation, can be stated, in short, as under : 2. The respondent, admittedly, was continuously working for a long time as daily wages worker with P.W.D. of the State of Maharashtra at Dhule prior to 2001. The respondent, therefore, demanded that he should be given benefits of permanent service. When that was denied, he filed complaint 2 WP380/07 (ULP) No. 85 of 2001. The petitioners opposed the complaint, but, on 13th March, 2002, the learned Judge of the labour Court allowed the complaint partly and directed the petitioners to reinstate the respondent in service and send his name to be taken on “C.R.T. muster”. C.R.T. muster was maintained in respect of the workers who are brought on regular establishment muster. The petitioner filed revision (ULP) No. 44 of 2002 against this order, but the parties arrived at a compromise and a detail compromise pursis was filed before the learned Member of the Industrial Court on 20th June, 2003. As per this compromise, the petitioners agreed to examine and consider the case of the respondent, as to whether he can be given benefit of terms of “the Kalelkar Settlement Award”. The terms of the settlement inter alia provided that if a worker works continuously for six years as daily wages worker of an establishment of the P.W.D., he would be absorbed on permanent establishment. Pursuant to this compromise, the officers of the P.W.D. Dhule collected information regarding the service rendered by the respondent as daily wages worker. They recommended his case to the Government, favourably. The higher officers of the Government then examined the case of the respondent and found that for quite sometime, on number of occasions, the respondent was orally ordered to work as daily wages worker by the Deputy Engineers. This occurred in the tenure of three Deputy Engineers, who are named by the Government. The Government questioned the authority of those Deputy Engineers to engage services of daily wages workers on the establishment. It is the case of the Government that the Deputy Engineers did not have authority to engage such workers. The Government, therefore, thought it fit that since the respondent’s claim for permanency on the basis of Kalelkar Settlement Award is based on unauthorized orders, they should challenge the above 3 WP380/07 mentioned impugned orders. The correspondence filed in support of the petition, clearly mentioned that the three Deputy Engineers should be asked explanation as to how they had unauthorizedly appointed / allowed the respondent to work on their establishment as daily wages worker. 3. The question is, assuming the three Deputy Engineers had unauthorizedly engaged the services of the respondent on their establishment for days together and assuming that they had exceeded their powers, the fact remains that the respondent worked on the establishment of the P.W.D., Dhule as daily wages worker. In such situation, the State of Maharashtra cannot go back on its word that they would absorb the respondent on their establishment if he is entitled as per the terms of Kalelkar Settlement Award. Even otherwise the State of Maharashtra cannot seek setting aside of the order that they obtain pursuant to the compromise pursis. If the orders are passed pursuant to a compromise between the parties, there is hardly any scope for the High Court to interfere in such order while exercising its powers under Articles 226 and 227 of the Constitution of India. The petition stands dismissed. Rule stands discharged. ( A.V. NIRGUDE, J. ) SRM/wp/380/07/25/3/11ok