WP/9320/2010 1 IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY CIVIL APPELLATE JURISDICTION WRIT PETITION NO.9320 OF 2010 Solapur Municipal Corporation, Solapur & Anr. ... Petitioners V/s. Shivprasad Ramji Gaikwad ... Respondent Mr. V.B. Naik for the Petitioners. Mr. S.S. Inamdar for the Respondent. CORAM : SMT. NISHITA MHATRE, J. DATE : 14 TH DECEMBER, 2010. P.C. : 1. The respondent herein has filed Complaint (ULP) No.7 of 2007 under Item 9 of Schedule IV of the Maharashtra Recognition of Trade Unions and Prevention of Unfair Labour Practices Act, 1971, (for short “the MRTU & PULP Act”), contending that the petitioner-Corporation had not complied with the order of the Industrial Court, Solapur dated 24th August, 1994 passed in Complaint (ULP) No. 171 of 1987. By that order the Industrial Court had held that the petitioner- Corporation had indulged in unfair labour practices under Item 6 of Schedule IV of the MRTU & PULP Act. The petitioner-Corporation was further directed to confer the status and privileges of a permanent employee on the respondent and to pay him all monetary benefits in respect of his permanency. This order of the Industrial Court had been challenged by the petitioner-Corporation in Writ Petition No.4673 of 1994. A learned Single Judge of this Court, by his order dated 2nd December, 1994, has upheld the order of the Industrial Court. While doing so, WP/9320/2010 2 the learned Judge had directed that similar cases which were pending for several years before the Industrial Court should be clubbed together and disposed of by the end of 1995. 2. The petitioner-Corporation, being aggrieved by the order of the learned Single Judge, preferred Letters Patent Appeal No.142 of 1995. While admitting the Letters Patent Appeal, the Division Bench of this Court stayed the order dated 2nd December, 1994 on condition that the appellant i.e. the petitioner-Corporation would try to implement the Scheme which was mentioned in the affidavit-in-reply filed by the Assistant Municipal Commissioner of the petitioner-Corporation. The Court, however, observed that the implementation of the Scheme would be without prejudice to the rights and contentions of the parties which may be raised at the time of final hearing of the Letters Patent Appeal. When the Letters Patent Appeal came up for final hearing, the Division Bench of this Court by its order dated 18th August, 2004 passed the following order, accepting the statement made by Counsel for the Corporation. “. The matter was adjourned on the last occasion to enable the learned counsel to take instructions. The learned counsel states that he has received telephonic instructions that the respondent has been regularized and even otherwise when the scheme which was referred to in the order of this court dated 13.12.1995 is implemented. He was however, waiting for written instructions. Considering the fact that oral instructions have been received, the appeal has become infructuous. Hence, appeal disposed of as infructuous.” WP/9320/2010 3 3. After this Letters Patent Appeal was disposed of, the respondent herein filed the present complaint. The Industrial Court has, in my view, rightly held that the petitioners had committed an unfair labour practice under Item 9 of Schedule IV of the MRTU & PULP Act by not implementing the order passed in Complaint (ULP) No.171 of 1987. It further directed that the order should be implemented immediately. 4. Mr. Naik, the learned Advocate appearing for the petitioner-Corporation, submits that the respondent was a party to the Letters Patent Appeal and, therefore, was bound by the order passed in the Letters Patent Appeal, where the Court has noted that the respondent was regularized in service. According to Mr. Naik, therefore, the Industrial Court in the present complaint could not have directed payment of the benefits and privileges of permanency in accordance with the order passed in Complaint (ULP) No.171 of 1987. 5. These submissions of Mr. Naik are without merit. The Division Bench while disposing of the Letters Patent Appeal on 18th August, 2004 has merely recorded a statement of the Counsel for the petitioner-Corporation to the effect that the respondent was regularized in service. According to Mr. Naik, the regularization must be considered to have been effected under the Scheme. According to him, the respondent-workman had given up his claim for any monetary benefits under the order passed by the Industrial Court. Mr. Naik has submitted that several such WP/9320/2010 4 workmen who have been made permanent under the Scheme have submitted affidavits indicating that they accept the conditions of the Scheme that they would be willing to forego their rights to claim benefits of permanency from any date prior to their being regularized in service under the Scheme. 6. It appears that this Scheme envisages that the workmen would forego their right to claim monetary benefits of permanency from any date prior to their being regularized in service under the Scheme. Affidavits were to be filed by the workmen indicating that they were willing to forego their claims for monetary benefits and rights in respect of their earlier service. Furthermore, the Scheme also mentioned that all pending litigations would be withdrawn by the workmen. 7. In my opinion, the submission of Mr. Naik cannot be accepted as there is no material on record to indicate that the respondent-workman had been regularized under the Scheme formulated and approved by the Government in 2001. He was regularized in 1998 and, therefore, could not have been regularized under the Scheme. Moreover there is no affidavit filed by him indicating that he is accepting the conditions under the Scheme that he would be willing to forego the benefits which he had obtained under the order passed in Complaint (ULP) No.171 of 1987. 8. Thus in view of the peculiar facts and circumstances of this case, the Writ Petition is rejected, without creating a precedent.