1 IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY NAGPUR BENCH, NAGPUR. Letter Patent Appeal No. 157 of 2009 . 1. MUNICIPAL COUNCIL, WARDHA THR. ITS CHIEF OFFICER. .. Petitioner/s VERSUS 1. SMT. DURGA MANCHAR WANKHEDE AND 5 ORS. .. Respondent/s Letter Patent Appeal No. 142 of 2009 . 1. GEETA RAMESH WANKHEDE AND 4 ORS. .. Petitioner/s VERSUS 1. MUNICIPAL COUNCIL, WARDHA THR. CHIEF OFFICER. .. Respondent/s Letter Patent Appeal No. 143 of 2009 1. SMT. DURGA MANOHAR WANKHEDE AND 3 ORS. .. Petitioner/s VERSUS 2 1. MUNICIPAL COUNCIL, WARDHA. THR. CHIEF OFFICER. .. Respondent/s Letter Patent Appeal No. 156 of 2009. 1. THE MUNICIPAL COUNCIL, WARDHA THR. ITS CHIEF OFFICER. .. Petitioner/s VERSUS 1. SUSHILA MADHUKARRAO CHAWARE, AND 9 ORS. .. Respondent/s Office Notes, Office Memoranda of Coram appearances, Court's orders or directions Court's or Judge's Orders and Registrar's orders. Shri Abhay Sambre Advocate for the Municipal Council Wardha. Shri M. V. Samarth Advocate for employees. Coram : B.P.DHARMADHIKARI AND F.M. REIS, JJ. Dated : 04TH august, 2009. 1. Heard finally with consent of parties. 2. The grievance of the employer Municipal Council is that none of the respondents had right to post and hence, the directions for regularization of two complainants namely Smt. Maya and Ratnamala as maintained by the learned Single Judge of this Court are unsustainable. It is contended that all the 3 complainants before the Industrial Court entered the service because of the orders of the President, and they were working as Anganwadi Servants and their appointments were for a particular duration. Hence, their names could not have been added to the seniority list of daily wagers who were working all the round in other departments of Municipal Corporation. It is urged that as all these aspects are not gone into by the Industrial Court as also by the learned Single Judge, the LPA needs to be allowed. The reliance is being placed on certain judgments of the Hon ble Apex Court in support of the contentions raised. 3. Advocate Mr. Samarth for respondents employees and for other employees who have filed the appeals has contended that the division of the complainants before the Industrial Court into two categories by the Hon ble Single Judge is misplaced. He states that the treatment which has been extended to Smt. Maya and Smt. Ratnamala should have also been extended to the other employees i.e. who have filed the appeal now before this Court. He further argues that the appellants in other appeals i.e. the respondents in present Letters Patent Appeal were appointed in the year 1984-85 and the effort of the Municipal Council to discriminate them and to give 4 other so called daily wagers a different treatment is misconceived and arbitrary. He contends that such discriminatory preference has been given to the other set of employees from 1996. According to him, all the employees ought to have been treated as similarly situated and as all the complainants before the Industrial Court are senior in length of service, they should have been directed to be regularized. 4. We have perused the papers. During arguments, it is stated that after learned Single Judge delivered the orders, the LPA was prepared and its copy was then immediately served on 31-3-2009 upon the Municipal Council. Because of service of that copy hurriedly the Municipal Council passed the order and brought the employees back on daily wages. He contends that till date, all the employees (Complainant before the Industrial Court) were receiving their salary in time scale and therefore, the said salary in time scale needs to be restored by appropriate interim orders. He has placed reliance upon the judgment of Hon ble Apex Court reported at 2008 2 CLR 147 UP State Electricity Board Vs. Punachndra Pande. 5. The said judgment of the Hon ble Apex Court has been subsequently explained, but in the present 5 facts, we do not find it necessary to go into those details. The basic question, which falls for our consideration, are whether the complainants before the Industrial Court, who are working since 1984-85 had any right to claim any regularization. It needs to be mentioned here that the Municipal Council is finding such right in favour of the set of daily wagers, who according to the Municipal Council were working regularly all the year round. This question has not been gone into by the Industrial Court. 6. In this view of the matter, and also because of the non-availability of Regional Subordinate Selection Board, during said period, the question of entitlement of the complainants before the Industrial Court to claim regularization needs to be re-examined. Hence, for the said purpose, after taking note of the fact that as on today, these complainants have put in about 23 to 25 years of service with Municipal Council, we quash and set aside the Judgment dated 13-3-2009 delivered by the learned Single Judge and impugned in this petition, so also the common orders passed by the Industrial Court dated 20-11-04 in ULP Complaint No.571 of 1996 and 263/97. The proceedings in ULP Complaints are restored back to the file of the Industrial Court for taking fresh decision in 6 accordance with law, as early as possible, and in any case by 31 st December 2009. 7. Parties are directed to appear before the Industrial Court on 24-08-2009. 8. Parties are also at liberty to amend their pleadings appropriately to bring out the entire controversy. 9. The employees have contended that during pendency of those complaints, their earlier status and wages before the Industrial Court should be restored and they should be permitted to draw their salary in regular time scale. 10. Learned Counsel for the employer has opposed this request. As the matter is made time bound, we are not inclined to pass any such order. We direct that the employer shall not give any break to these employees till the matter is decided by the Industrial Court. 11. Subject to this, Letters Patent Appeals are allowed without any order as to costs. JUDGE JUDGE /Muley/