1 wp1638-11gr.doc ttm IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY CIVIL APPELLATE JURISDICTION WRIT PETITION NO.1638 OF 2011 Pune Municipal Corporation .. Petitioner Vs. Dilip Dashrath Gaikwad and Anr. .. Respondents WITH WRIT PETITION NO.1031 OF 2011 Pune Municipal Corporation .. Petitioner Vs. Navnath Ramchandra Mokashi & Ors. .. Respondents WITH WRIT PETITION NO.1090 OF 2011 Pune Municipal Corporation .. Petitioner Vs. Maheshdattaram Mathadikari and Anr. .. Respondents WITH WRIT PETITION NO.1096 OF 2011 Pune Municipal Corporation .. Petitioner Vs. 2 wp1638-11gr.doc Narayan Govind Shinde and Anr. .. Respondents WITH WRIT PETITION NO.1097 OF 2011 Pune Municipal Corporation .. Petitioner Vs. Hemraj Kevalram Meshram and Anr. .. Respondents WITH WRIT PETITION NO.1098 OF 2011 Pune Municipal Corporation .. Petitioner Vs. Dattatraya Shripati Jadhav and Anr. .. Respondents WITH WRIT PETITION NO.1099 OF 2011 Pune Municipal Corporation .. Petitioner Vs. Ashok Baban Chavan and Anr. .. Respondents WITH WRIT PETITION NO.1100 OF 2011 Pune Municipal Corporation .. Petitioner Vs. Nagnath Narhari Karale and Anr. .. Respondents 3 wp1638-11gr.doc WITH WRIT PETITION NO.1101 OF 2011 Pune Municipal Corporation .. Petitioner Vs. Sarjerao Bajrang Shendage and Anr. . .. Respondents WITH WRIT PETITION NO.1102 OF 2011 Pune Municipal Corporation .. Petitioner Vs. Rohitdas Maruti Khengare and Anr. .. Respondents WITH WRIT PETITION NO.1104 OF 2011 Pune Municipal Corporation .. Petitioner Vs. Maruti Bhau Lawhate and Anr. .. Respondents WITH WRIT PETITION NO.1107 OF 2011 Pune Municipal Corporation .. Petitioner Vs. Ashok Shivaji Sawant and Anr. .. Respondents WITH 4 wp1638-11gr.doc WRIT PETITION NO.1109 OF 2011 Pune Municipal Corporation .. Petitioner Vs. Suresh Jayram Chavan and Anr. .. Respondents WITH WRIT PETITION NO.1110 OF 2011 Pune Municipal Corporation .. Petitioner Vs. Rajendra Vitthal Suryawanshi and Anr. .. Respondents WITH WRIT PETITION NO.1116 OF 2011 Pune Municipal Corporation .. Petitioner Vs. Jagannath Kondiba Shinde and Anr. .. Respondents WITH WRIT PETITION NO.1123 OF 2011 Pune Municipal Corporation .. Petitioner Vs. Tanaji Dattu Waghmare and Anr. .. Respondents WITH WRIT PETITION NO.1124 OF 2011 5 wp1638-11gr.doc Pune Municipal Corporation .. Petitioner Vs. Milind Namdev Ranawade and Anr. .. Respondents WITH WRIT PETITION NO.1125 OF 2011 Pune Municipal Corporation .. Petitioner Vs. Sanjay Vasant Mahadik and Anr. .. Respondents Mr.Rajdeep Khadapkar for the petitioner Mr.Jaydeep S. Deo for respondent no.1 Mr.P.G.Sawant ‘B’ Panel for respondent no.2 CORAM: K.K. TATED, J. DATE: 4th AUGUST, 2011 PC: 1. Heard the learned counsel for the parties. 2. By this petition, under Articles 226 and 227 of the Constitution of India, petitioner original respondent Pune Municipal Corporation challenges oral common order below Ex.U-2 dt. 19.7.2010 passed by learned Member, Industrial Court, Pune directing petitioner to continue the respondents original 6 wp1638-11gr.doc complainants in the employment till the final disposal of the complaint. Few facts of the matter are as under: 3. In Writ Petition Nos.1031 of 2011, 1098 of 2011, 1102 of 2011, 1104 of 2011, 1124 of 2011 and 1638 of 2011 respondents original complainants were working with the petitioner on ad- hoc basis since 2003 and in remaining writ petitions since 2007-2008. 4. Petitioner used to give them ad-hoc appointment as Nuisance Detector for the six months as per section 53 of Bombay Provincial Municipal Corporation Act, 1949. On the apprehension that the petitioner may not extend their services in future, respondents original complainants filed complaint under MRTU and PULP Act, 1971 under section 28(1) Schedule IV item 6, 9 and 10 seeking direction against the petitioner to make them permanent in their service and other benefits. In those complaints, respondents original complainants preferred application for interim relief restraining petitioners from discontinuing them from services till the hearing and final disposal of main complaint. In the said complaint, applicant petitioner filed their reply dated 20.4.2010 and vehemently 7 wp1638-11gr.doc opposed the said interim application. 5. After hearing both the sides, the learned Member, Industrial Court, Pune by impugned order dt.19.7.2010 restrained the petitioner from discontinuing the respondents original complainants services till the hearing and final disposal of main complaint. 6. The learned counsel for petitioner submits that the impugned order dt.19.7.2010 passed by learned Member Industrial Court Pune is against justice, equity and good conscious and same is liable to be set aside. He submits that the Municipal Commissioner has power under section 53(3) of Bombay Provincial Municipal Corporation Act, 1949 to give appointment for specific period i.e. six months only. He further submits that for those posts, they gave advertisement in newspaper. Inspite of public advertisement, respondents have not applied and they filed present complaint before the Industrial Court. 7. Apart from the grounds raised by the petitioner in their petition, it is to be noted that the impugned order is passed by the learned Member, Industrial Court, Pune on 19.7.2010 and the present petition is preferred by petitioner in the month of 8 wp1638-11gr.doc January, 2011. 8. Without going into the merits of the matter in the interest of Justice, Industrial Court is directed to finally decide the complaints filed by respondents original complainants within six months from the receipt of copy of this order. Till the hearing and final disposal of main complaint Interim order dt. 19.7.2010 passed by learned Member, Industrial Court, Pune to continue. 9. All these petitions are disposed of. 10.No order as to costs. 11.Parties to act on authenticated copy of this order. (K.K.TATED,J.)