WP NO.11151/2010 1 IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY BENCH AT AURANGABAD UNREPORTED WRIT PETITION NO.11151 of 2010 (Divisional Controller Vs. Sharad ) Date of decision: 4/5/2011 For approval and signature HON'BLE MR.JUSTICE K.U.CHANDIWAL 1. Whether the Reporters of Local Papers Yes may be allowed to see the Judgment ? 2. To be referred to the Reporter or not ? No 3. Whether Their Lordships wish to see No. the fair copy of the Judgment ? 4. Whether this case involves a substantial? No. question of law as to the interpretation of the Constitution of India, 1950, or any order made thereunder ? 5. Whether it is to be circulated to the No. Civil Judges ? 6. Whether the case involves an important No question of law and whether a copy of the Order should be sent to Bombay, Goa and Nagpur Office ? Private Secretary AGP/office/11151-10wp WP NO.11151/2010 2 IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE OF BOMBAY BENCH AT AURANGABAD WRIT PETITION NO.11151 OF 2010 1. Divisional Controller, Maharashtra State Road Transport Corporation, Ahmednagar, Dist. Ahmednagar. 2. Depot Manager, Maharashtra State Road Transport Corporation Pathardi, Tq. Pathardi, Dist. Ahmednagar. ...PETITIONERS VERSUS Sharad Shakindar Dinkar, Age 38 years, Occu: Service, R/o Near Ramgiri Baba Hills, Pathardi, Tq. Pathardi, Dist. Ahmednagar. ...RESPONDENTS ... Mr. B.B.Yenge, Adv., for the petitioner. Mr.P.V.Barde, Adv., for respondent (sole). ... CORAM: K.U.CHANDIWAL, J. DATE : 4/5/2011 *** ORAL JUDGMENT: 1. Heard. Rule, made returnable forthwith and heard finally with the consent of learned WP NO.11151/2010 3 Counsel for the parties. 2. The writ petitioner questions legality of the order dt.18.12.2009 passed below Exh.U-2 by the learned Member of the Industrial Court at Ahmednagar in Complaint (ULP) No.88/2007 and has also prayed for staying the said order. The order reads as under: "1. Application Exh.U-2 is partly allowed. 2. The respondents are directed not to dis-continue the services of complainant without following due process of law. Complainant is entitled to render his service as per the service conditions which were prevailing on the date of filing of the complaint. 3. In peculiar circumstances of the case there is no order as to costs. " 3. Little flashback in the matter is essential. Since the above referred order of the Industrial Court was not adhered in its letter and spirit, the employee Sharad approached this Court in Writ Petition No.929/2010. By order dt.30th Sept.,2010, his grievance was attended to, directing the Maharashtra State Road Transport Corporation ( For short, MSRTC ) to pay the minimum wages payable to said Sharad effective from the date of order i.e. 18.12.2009, within a period of six weeks. It was also WP NO.11151/2010 4 expected of the learned Judge seized with the matter to expedite hearing of the complaint. All points between the parties were kept open and writ petition was allowed as above. 4. Being aggrieved by said orders in the writ petition, MSRTC preferred Letters Patent Appeal (LPA) No.341/2010 and by order dt.10th Jan.,2011, LPA was dismissed. Mr.Yenge submits that against the orders in LPA, review is pending. 5. Sharad's status to be employee of MSRTC is questioned by MSRTC. He is said to be an employee of Organisers of Sulabh Shauchalaya at Pathardi. Sharad says, the contract with Sulabh Shauchalaya was terminated long back and MSRTC claims that still the contract is in force, and the so called employee Sharad has no relation as employer-employee with MSRTC as his contract or removal are directly from the Organizers of Sulabh Shauchalaya. 6. Considering the catalogue of events flowing in the order dt.30th Sept.,2010 and expedition expected from the learned Member, Industrial Court to dispose of the matter in a time frame, at this stage, it will be playing with the orders in Writ Petition No.929/2010 or WP NO.11151/2010 5 with the orders in LPA No.341/2010 if the orders dt.18.12.2009, recorded by the learned Member, Industrial Court, are quashed. Both the learned Counsels agree time bound disposal of complaint. 7. In the above situation, the writ petition is partly allowed with following directions: The learned Judge of the Industrial Court will expeditiously dispose of the Complaint (ULP) No.88/2007, on its own merit within a time frame of three months of receiving the writ. The MSRTC shall deposit the amount pursuant to the directions in the Writ Petition No. 929/2010, with the learned Member, Industrial Court within a month. Learned Member, Industrial Court, will independently decide payment thereof to alleged employee Sharad, based on his application. Writ petition disposed of. Rule discharged. (K.U.CHANDIWAL) JUDGE ... AGP/11151-10wp