1 IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY NAGPUR BENCH, NAGPUR WRIT PETITION NO. 3948/2006 (Municipal Council, Karanja vs. Member, Industrial Court, Jalgaon and others) ====================================== Shri D.M.Surjuse, Adv. for the petitioner Shri A.D.Girdekar, Adv. for respondents. CORAM : Smt. Vasanti A. Naik, J. DATE : 11th NOVEMBER, 2008 1. By this petition, the petitioner challenges the judgment passed by the Industrial Court, Jalgaon, on 13.1.2006, partly allowing the Complaint ULP No. 149/96 filed by Respondent Nos. 2 to 15. During the pendency of the petition, respondent Nos. 2, 3 & 15 were deleted from the array of respodnents. 2. 28 employees had filed a joint complaint bearing Complaint ULPA No. 149/96, before the Industrial Court, Jalgaon, alleging therein that the petitioner had committed unfair labour practice under Items 5, 6 & 9 of Schedule IV of the M.R.T.U. & P.U.L.P. Act, 1971. According to the complainants, they were working on daily wages with the petitioner and they had rendered service to the petitioner for about 10-15 years. They claimed to have been working on the posts of Peon, Coolies, Safai Kamgar 2 and Chokidar. It was the case of the complainants that the petitioner has contravened the provisions of Kalelkar Award and was engaging outsiders on the post of Safai Kamgar and Coolies, instead of promoting or regularizing the complainants on those posts. It was stated in the complaint that about 25 posts of Peons, Coolies and Safai Kamgar were vacant and the petitioner was likely to fill up those posts by appointing outsiders. 3. The petitioner filed the written statement and denied the case of the complainants. During the pendency of the complaint before the Industrial Court, Jalgaon, the services of several complainants were regularized and hence their names came to be deleted from the complaint. It was stated by the petitioner in the written statement that no unfair labour practice was committed by the petitioner and the services of the several complainants were regularized during the pendency of the complaint as per the availability of the posts which were sanctioned by the Government from time to time. 4. After considering the evidence tendered by the parties on record, the Industrial Court, Jalgaon, by the judgment dated 13.01.2006 partly allowed the complaint and directed the petitioner to regularize the 3 complainants in case of vacancy as they had absorbed the other complainants during the pendency of the complaint. Since the petitioner had given the consequential benefits to the other complainants who were absorbed during the pendency of the complaint, the Court directed the petitioner to grant similar benefits as were grantred to the other complainants. 5. It is canvassed on behalf of the petitioner that in view of the new policy of the State Government, the petitioner has no power or authority to regularize the services of the remaining complainants. 6. The submission made on behalf of the petitioner is liable to be rejected for the reason that the complaint was filed by the complainants as early as in the year 1996 and during the pendency of the complaint, in the year 2002, several complainants were absorbed in the services and the necessary consequential benefits were also granted to them by order dated 8.10.2002. In view of the submission made on behalf of the Municipal Council at the time of argument of the matter before the Industrial Court at Jalgaon that the complainants would be absorbed in service as and when vacancy would arise, the Industrial Court found that the petitioner had not 4 committed any unfair labour practice as the petitioner was willing to absorb the other complainants in case of vacancies. In this background, the Municipal Council was directed to absorb the remaining complainants on the concerned posts in case of existence of clear vacancies and hence it could be said that the petition is misconceived and the submission made on behalf of the petitioner in this Court is an after thought, as a contrary submission was made on behalf of the Municipal Council before the Industrial Court, Jalgaon, at the time of hearing of the complaint. 7. For the reasons aforesaid, the judgment reported in (2006) 4 SCC 1, would not come to the rescue of the petitioner as it is distinguishable on facts. Hence, the writ petition is dismissed with no order as to costs. JUDGE Rvjalit