(1) IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY, AURANGABAD BENCH, AT AURANGABAD. WRIT PETITION NO. 455 OF 1991 Nandakumar Bhaurao Kamble, Aged 48 years, Occupation : Service, Resident of New Christian Colony, Station Road, Ahmednagar. .. Petitioner. versus 1. Bhaskar Pandurang Hiwale - Education Society, Ahmednagar, Through its Secretary. 2. Principal, Ahmednagar College, Station Road, Ahmednagar. 3. Executive Director, Centre for Studies in Rural Development (C.S.R.D.), Ahmednagar College, Ahmednagar. 4. State of Maharashtra, Through Director of Education, M.S. Central Building, Pune. (2) 5. Joy Thomas, Aged about 35 years, Occupation : Services, R/o. Ahmednagar College Campus, Ahmednagar. .. Respondents. .......................... Mr. M.V. Deshpande, Advocate, for the petitioner. Mr. C.V. Dharurkar, Advocate, holding for Mr. S.B. Pallod, Advocate, for respondent nos.1 to 3. Mr. V.G. Shelke, Assistant Government Pleader, for respondent no.4. Mr. A.S. Bajaj, Advocate, for respondent no.5. .......................... CORAM : B.R. GAVAI, J. Date of reserving the judgment : 4th November 2009. Date of pronouncing the judgment : 25th November 2009. JUDGMENT : 1. The petitioner challenges the judgment and order dated 27th (3) August 1990, passed by the learned Member of the Industrial Court, Ahmednagar, in Complaint (ULP) No. 184/1987, thereby dismissing the complaint filed by the present petitioner. 2. The petitioner has filed the Complaint originally against the respondent nos.1 to 3 herein. It is the contention of the petitioner, that the respondent no.1 had established the Ahmednagar College, the Principal of which is added as respondent no.2 to the present petition. It is the contention of the petitioner, that the Centre for Studies in Rural Development (For short, hereinafter referred to as "CSRD") is one of the departments of the Ahmednagar College. It is his contention that though there is separate Executive Director for the said Centre, it is under the control and supervision of respondent no.2 college. 3. According to the petitioner, he was appointed as Clerk-cum- Stenotypist in the respondent no.2 college since May 1970. It is the contention of the petitioner, that though the petitioner was entitled to be appointed as a Stenographer and, as such, entitled for higher pay scale, the opponents in the complaint had not given him the pay scale of Stenographer. It is the contention of the petitioner, that subsequently on 23rd September 1981, one another person (who is for the first time joined as respondent no.5 in the present petition) was appointed and given a higher pay scale of Stenographer. It was the case of the complainant, that since a person junior to him was given a higher pay scale, denying the same to the complainant, the respondent no.1 had shown favouritism or (4) partiality to the subsequently employed or appointed Stenographer. It was case of the complainant, that in order to give favouritism to the subsequently employed employee, the service record of the petitioner was also not maintained. It was case of the complainant, that this was done with a motive of victimization, so as to remove the petitioner as and when management desired. 4. It was also case of the complainant, that the respondents were acting contrary to and violative of the terms and conditions of the service contract and, as such, had failed to implement the settlement and thereby respondents committed an unfair labour practice under Item 9 of Schedule IV of the Maharashtra Recognition of Trade Unions and Prevention of Unfair Labour Practices Act, 1971 (For short, herein after referred to as "MRTU & PULP Act"). The complainant, therefore, prayed for a direction to the opponents in the complaint, to give higher pay scale of Stenographer, as approved by the University Grants Commission. He also sought a declaration that he is a permanent employee of Ahmednagar College. 5. The complaint of the complainant was resisted on behalf of the opponents in the complaint. An objection was raised, that the complaint itself was not tenable, inasmuch as, the provisions of the Industrial Disputes Act, 1947, and MRTU & PULP Act, were not applicable to the opponents. It was also their preliminary objection, that the respondent no.3 was working directly under the control of the (5) Ministry of Human Resources, New Delhi, and as such, the appropriate Government was the Central Government. It was, therefore, contended that the complaint was not tenable before the Industrial Court, which was not constituted by the Central Government. It was specifically contended by the opponents, that the activities of the respondent no.3 were separate than the activities of the respondent no.2 college. It was submitted that the staff of the respondent no.2 college was different and the staff of CSRD was different. It was, therefore, submitted that the complaint was devoid of any substance. By the impugned, the complaint came to be dismissed. Hence, the present petition. 6. Mr. M.V. Deshpande, learned Counsel appearing for the petitioner, submits that the learned Member of the Industrial Court has erred in dismissing the complaint. He submits that the appointment of the petitioner was by the respondent no.2 and, therefore, it has to be presumed to be an appointment under the respondent no.2 college. He submitted that as a matter of convenience, the services of the petitioner came to be transferred to the CSRD, which was one of the departments of the respondent no.2. He submits that an option form was given by the petitioner for availing of the Pension-cum-Gratuity Scheme, as framed by the Government of Maharashtra. He submits that in the totality of the circumstances, it ought to have been held that the petitioner is employee of the respondent no.2 college. He submits that clandestinely, the respondent no.2 had appointed the respondent no.5 as a Junior Stenographer on 21st September 1981. He submits that since the (6) petitioner was working in CSRD, he was not aware about the same and immediately after he came to know about the same, he has filed the complaint. The learned Counsel appearing for the petitioner, therefore, submits that the petitioner be declared as employee of respondent no.2 college and all consequential benefits should be given to him, treating him as a Stenographer. 7. Mr. C.V. Dharurkar, learned Counsel appearing for respondent nos.1 to 3, on the contrary, submits that the learned Member of the Industrial Court has rightly come to a finding of fact, that the petitioner was appointed in CSRD and was not regular employee of the college. He submits that the petitioner had not even impleaded respondent no.5 herein as a party respondent in the proceedings before the Industrial Court. He further submits that from the entire documents on record, it would reveal that the petitioner was working under CSRD which is a separate entity under the control of the Central Government and has no concern with the college. 8. The scope of interference by this court, while exercising its jurisdiction, under Article 227 of the Constitution of India, would be very limited. It would be permissible for this court to interfere with the findings recorded by the Industrial Court, only in the event, it is found that the findings, as recorded by the Industrial Court, are perverse. From the perusal of the judgment of the Industrial Court, it would reveal that the learned Member of the Industrial Court had directed inspection report (7) to be submitted since the record was found to be bulky. The inspection report was submitted at Exhibit CU-1. The learned Member of the Industrial Court, on perusal of the record of Ahmednagar College, has found that it does not contain name of the complainant, petitioner. It has further been found that the record commencing from January 1972 to June 1976 and the pay sheets from September 1969 to April 1975 were inspected. However, they did not find the name of the complainant. On the contrary, it has been found by the Industrial Court, that in the muster rolls maintained by CSRD, name of the complainant is very much there. It has been found that initially designation of the complainant has been shown as Typist. However, from May 1976, it was shown as Steno- Typist. However, again from July 1976 to March 1977, it was shown as Typist. The learned Member of the Industrial Court, on perusal of the material on record, has found that in the year 1970, there was no post of Junior Stenographer available in the college and, as such, there was no question of petitioner being appointed on the post of Junior Stenographer. The learned Member of the Industrial Court, on the basis of the material placed before it, has held that the appointment of the petitioner as Clerk- cum-Stenotypist will have to be considered as Clerk-cum-Typist or Steno- Typist. 9. The learned Member of the Industrial Court also, on the basis of the material on record, found that the petitioner was paid all the allowances in accordance with the circulars issued by the University of Pune. The Industrial Court has further found that the appointment of (8) Junior Stenographer was made by respondent no.2, after the said post became available to it in pursuance to the notification issued by the Government of Maharashtra in the year 1980. It is to be noted that though the respondent no.5, who is now added in the present petition, was appointed in the year 1981, the petitioner has not challenged the said appointment. Even though the complaint was filed in the year 1987, the said respondent no.5 was not made party respondent to the said complaint. 10. It thus appears to be a position, that from the beginning, appointment of the petitioner was on CSRD under the control of respondent no.3. From the material on record, it would reveal that the petitioner was on the establishment of said CSRD, which is under direct control of the Ministry of Human Resources. The correspondence on record would reveal that the necessary correspondence with the authorities of the said Department of Union of India was done for grant of necessary benefits to the present petitioner, for example, arrears of revised pay scale, etc. Perusal of the service book of the petitioner would also reveal that the petitioner was working under the respondent no.3. On the contrary, as observed by the learned Member of the Industrial Court, it would reveal that the name of the petitioner was never shown on the establishment of respondent no.2. It is to be noted that the staff, appointed on the affiliated recognized colleges, has to be according to the staffing pattern sanctioned by the Joint Director of Education. Not only this, but appointments made are also required to be approved by the said (9) authority. There is nothing placed on record to show that there was any approval to the appointment of the petitioner in the respondent no.2 college by the Joint Director of Education. In that view of the matter, it is difficult to accept the contention of the petitioner, that the petitioner was appointed on the establishment of respondent no.2. 11. In that view of the matter, no merit is found in the petition and it deserves to be dismissed. However, it is needless to state that if the petitioner is entitled to any of the pensionary or retiral benefits on the basis of his employment with respondent no.3, under the Ministry of Human Resources, Government of India, the petitioner may pursue his remedy before appropriate forum and the dismissal of the present petition would not come in the way of the same. 12. In the result, the petition is dismissed. Rule is discharged. There shall be no order as to costs. ( B.R. GAVAI ) JUDGE ......................... bgp/wp455