WP/8007 & 8008/2010 1 IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY CIVIL APPELLATE JURISDICTION WRIT PETITION NO.8007 OF 2010 Zilla Parishad, Kolhapur ... Petitioner V/s. Chitra Keshav Khambait ... Respondent ALONG WITH WRIT PETITION NO.8008 OF 2010 Zilla Parishad, Kolhapur ... Petitioner V/s. Hema Appaso Lavate ... Respondent Mr. S.R. Nargolkar for the Petitioner in both the Writ Petitions. Mr. P.D. Dalvi for the Respondent in WP/8007/2010. Mr. M.S. Topkar for the Respondent in WP/2008/2010. CORAM : SMT. NISHITA MHATRE, J. DATE : 29 TH NOVEMBER, 2010. P.C. : 1. Both these Writ Petitions have been filed against the common order dated 16th February, 2010, passed in Revision Application (ULP) Nos.203 and 204 of 2009 by the Industrial Court, Maharashtra at Kolhapur. The Industrial Court has reversed the orders dated 23rd November, 2009 passed by the Labour Court, Kolhapur, in Complaint (ULP) Nos.142 and 143 of WP/8007 & 8008/2010 2 2009, and has granted interim relief to the respondents. It has directed the Zilla Parishad, Kolhapur, to provide work to the applicants, i.e. the respondents herein, in the posts to which they were appointed and to continue their employment till the Complaint (ULP) Nos.142 and 143 of of 2009 are finally decided. 2. Mr. Nargolkar, the learned Advocate appearing for the petitioner, points out that the Labour Court in a well considered order passed by it has refused interim relief to the respondents, which order should not have been disturbed by the Industrial Court in Revision. 3. The dispute has arisen in the following manner : . The respondents were selected through the regular selection process as Health Workers. They were found suitable by the Selection Committee and were, therefore, appointed. Thereafter it appears that some unsuccessful candidates approached the Authorities and submitted a representation contending that they had been wrongly marked by the Selection Committee. It appears that the Selection Committee then invited certain candidates who were not called for an interview, though eligible in view of their having passed the WP/8007 & 8008/2010 3 written examination. These new candidates were found to be more meritorious than the respondents. The Zilla Parishad, Kolhapur, therefore, terminated the services of the respondents in order to accommodate these candidates. 4. The Industrial Court has reversed the findings of the Labour Court since both the respondents had completed 240 days in service. Besides this, it appears from the order of the Labour Court that the selection process itself was under a cloud as the marks of certain candidates who had not asked the Zilla Parishad for a revision had also been changed. In my opinion, therefore, the Industrial Court cannot be said to have committed any error in passing the impugned order. 5. Mr. Nargolkar appearing for the Zilla Parishad has pointed out the order passed by the Division Bench of this Court on 19th November, 2009 in Writ Petition No.1611 of 2009 and other connected Writ Petitions. He submits that the issue raised in the complaint is similar to the issue involved in the Writ Petition and, therefore, the respondents would have to appear before the Secretary, Department of Rural Development and Water Conservation to submit their representations, if any, regarding their appointments. WP/8007 & 8008/2010 4 6. Mr. Nargolkar, the learned AGP appearing for the petitioner, points out that appointment orders have already been issued to two persons and their joining reports are also produced. In these circumstances, in my opinion, the following order will meet the ends of justice. “O R D E R” (i). The impugned orders dated 16th February, 2010, passed in Revision Application (ULP) Nos.203 and 204 of 2009 by the Industrial Court, Maharashtra at Kolhapur, are set aside. (ii). The hearing of the Complaint (ULP) Nos.142 and 143 of 2009, which are pending before the Labour Court, Kolhapur, is expedited. (iii). The Labour Court, Kolhapur, shall hear and dispose of the Complaint (ULP) Nos.142 and 143 of 2009 by December, 2011. WP/8007 & 8008/2010 5 (iv). The complainants, i.e. the respondents herein, may join those candidates in the complaints whose names are listed in the appointment orders produced on record today, in case they are posted against the posts on which the respondents herein were appointed. 7. Both these Writ Petitions are disposed of with aforesaid directions.