1 wp4149-11.doc ttm IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY CIVIL APPELLATE JURISDICTION WRIT PETITION NO.4149 OF 2011 Hydraulic Engineer, Water Supply Department Kolhapur Municipal Corporation and Another .. Petitioners Vs. Shri Krishnath Tukaram Patil .. Respondent WITH WRIT PETITION NO.4150 OF 2011 Hydraulic Engineer, Water Supply Department Kolhapur Municipal Corporation and Another .. Petitioners Vs. Shri Rajaram Jagannath Padalkar .. Respondent WITH WRIT PETITION NO.4151 OF 2011 Hydraulic Engineer, Water Supply Department Kolhapur Municipal Corporation and Another .. Petitioners Vs. Shri Shahikant Dinkar Tiwale .. Respondent 2 wp4149-11.doc Mr.S.S.Patwardhan for the petitioners Mr.Tanaji Matungare for the respondent CORAM: K.K. TATED, J. DATE: 1ST AUGUST, 2011 PC: 1. Heard the learned counsel for the parties. 2. Rule. 3. Rule made returnable forthwith. 4. By consent, matter is taken up for final hearing at the stage of admission itself. 5. All these petitions can be disposed of by common order as the same are arising out of common judgment passed by Industrial Court. 6. By these petitions, under Articles 226 and 227 of the Constitution of India, petitioners original respondents challenge the common judgment dt.7.4.2010 passed by learned Member, Industrial Court No.2, Kolhapur directing the petitioners to give promotion to the respondents to the post of Water Tax Recoverer and Meter Readers respectively by giving them all the benefits applicable to the said promotional post from the date of filing of the said complaints. 3 wp4149-11.doc Few facts of the matter are as under: 7. Respondents original complainants are working with petitioners since 1991. Sometime in the year 2002. Petitioners’ officer directed them to do the work as Meter Reader and Recoverer of Water Tax and since then they were doing the said work till the filing of the complaint. After some time, the respondents demanded promotion to the post of Water Tax Recoverer and Meter Readers and same was denied by the petitioners on the ground that initially, they were appointed as workers and therefore, they are not entitled to the said post. Being aggrieved by the said denial, respondents filed complaint under Article 9 and 10 of Schedule IV of MRTU and PULP Act, 1971 against the petitioners for granting promotion to them as Water Tax Recoverer and Meter Readers and claimed benefit of that post. The said complaint was decided by learned Member, Industrial Court by impugned order dt. 7.4.2010. Hence, the present petition. 8. The learned counsel for the petitioners submits that the learned Member, Industrial Court erred in coming to the conclusion that the respondents original complainants are entitled to promotion to the post of Water Tax Recoverer and Meter 4 wp4149-11.doc Readers. They were initially appointed as workers. He submits that the Industrial Court ought to have held that the respondents original complainants are not eligible for the post of Water Tax Recoverer and Meter Readers. He further submits that the Industrial Court failed to consider the evidence on record and erred in relying on the letter dt.30.4.2002 issued by petitioners’ department to the respondents directing them to work as Water Tax Recoverer and Meter Readers. He further submits that in any case the respondents were initially appointed as workers and without any qualification, they cannot give promotion to the post of Water Tax Recoverer and Meter Readers. On the basis of this submission, he submits that the impugned order passed by the Tribunal dated 7.4.2010 is liable to be set aside. 9. Per contra, the learned counsel for the respondents original complainants vehemently opposed the present petition. He submits that the Industrial Court has considered the evidence on record and perused the documentary evidence and held that the respondents are entitled to promotion to that post. He submits that under Articles 226 and 227 of the Constitution of India, this court should not enter into the field of appreciation 5 wp4149-11.doc of evidence on record. He further submits that the Industrial Court mainly relied on the petitioners own letter dt.30.04.2002 by which the petitioners directed the respondents to work as Water Tax Recoverer and Meter Readers and since then they are working on the said post. On the basis of this submission, he submits that there is no substance in the petition and the same is liable to be dismissed with costs. 10.I have perused the impugned order dt.7.4.2010, copy of complaint and other documents on record. Admittedly, the Industrial Court mainly relied on the letter dated 30.04.2002 issued by the petitioners directing respondent to work as Water Tax Recoverer and Meter Readers and since then, they are working on that post. These facts are not denied by the petitioners’ witnesses also. Trial Court also recorded that letters dt.30.04.2002, 14.3.2000 and 20.10.1997 which show that respondents have been working as a Water Tax Recoverer are admitted by the petitioners’ advocate vide his endorsement. Therefore, the contention in the written argument put forward by the learned Advocate Salokhe for Municipal Corporation by relying on some judgment are not applicable to the facts of the case. The Industrial Court after considering the admission 6 wp4149-11.doc given by the petitioners during the course of hearing and relying on the documentary evidence held that respondents original complainants were working as Water Tax Recoverer and Meter Readers since 2002, and therefore, they are entitled for the promotion to the said post. Though respondents were working on the said post since 2002. Industrial court granted benefit of the said post to the respondents from the date of filing of complaint i.e. from the year 2006. As the order passed by the Industrial Court is based on appreciation of evidence on record, I do not find any reason to interfere with the said finding under Articles 226 and 227 of the Constitution of India. 11.Hence, these petitions are dismissed. 12.No order as to costs. (K.K.TATED,J.)