1 IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY BENCH AT AURANGABAD WRIT PETITION NO.5187 OF 2009 1) Ashish Jagdish Varade, Age-31 years, Occu:Nil, R/o-Pawannagar, Market Yard, Dhule, Tq. & Dist-Dhule, 2) Jitendra Kisan Lanage, Age-31 years, Occu:Nil, R/o-Manmad Gin, Near Water Tank, Dhule, 3) Prabhakar Sukhdeo Patil, Age-39 years, Occu:Nil, R/o-Manmad Gin, Near Water Tank, Dhule, 4) Suresh Dagdu Targe, Age-35 yearsw, Occu:Nil, R/o-Galli No.7, Parola Road, Police Chouki, Dhule. ...PETITIONERS. VERSUS 1) The State of Maharashtra, Through its Secretary Department of Nagar Vikas, Mantralaya, Mumbai. 2) The Commissioner, Municipal Corporation, Dhule, Dist-Dhule. ...RESPONDENTS. 2 ... Mr.G.K. Kshirsagar Advocate h/f. Mr. N.L. Choudhari Advocate for Petitioners. Mr.Umakant Patil A.G.P. for Respondent Nos. 1 & 2. ... CORAM: K.K. TATED, J. DATE : 13TH AUGUST, 2009. PER COURT : 1. Rule. Rule made returnable forthwith. With the consent of the learned counsel for the parties, matter is heard finally at the stage of admission. 2. By this Petition under Article 226 and 227 of the Constitution of India, the Petitioners challenges the common Judgment and order dated 30th November, 2004 passed by the learned Member, Industrial Court, Dhule in Revision Applications thereby confirming the common Judgment and order dated 29th December, 2000 passed by the learned Judge, Labour Court, Dhule in Complaint (ULP) in respect of the Petitioners. 3. It is the case of the Petitioners that they were appointed by Respondent No.2 during the period from 1991 3 to 1994 as skilled workers on daily wages basis. On 31st July, 1997 their services were terminated. Prior to the termination of services, the Petitioners have continuously served for more than 240 days with Respondent No.2. Therefore the Petitioners filed Complaint under Schedule IV Item 1 (a), (b), (d) and (f) of the Maharashtra Recognition of Trade Unions and Prevention of Unfair Labour Practices Act, 1971. The said Complaint was dismissed by the Labour Court, Dhule by Judgment and order dated 29th December, 2000. Being aggrieved by the said Judgment and order dated 29th December, 2000, the Petitioners preferred Revision Applications in the Industrial Court, Dhule. Said Revision Applications also came to be dismissed by the Judgment and order dated 30th November, 2004 passed by Industrial Court, Dhule. 4. Learned Judge of the Labour Court found that the Petitioners have no entitlement to continue in the employment with the Municipal Council for the reasons set out in the order. Therefore, the Labour Court dismissed Petitioners' Complaint. The Revision Application presented by the Petitioners also came to be 4 dismissed by the learned Member of Industrial Court, Dhule. 5. The Petitioners contended that they were in the employment of the Municipal Council. During the intervening period, the erstwhile Municipal Council was converted into Dhule Municipal Corporation. In case of similar situated employees, it is stated that, identical orders were passed which were subject matter of challenge in L.P.A. No.123 of 1998 in the matter of Keval Bana Gopal Mali and others vs. Dhule Municipal Council (Reported in 1998(80) F.L.R. Page 871). Though the Bombay High Court refused to entertain the L.P.A., however, issued clarification in the interest of the employees that, as and when the regular appointments would be made on the availability of the posts, weightage should be given to the persons who were in the employment, and if it is permissible in accordance with law, rules or the regulations governing recruitment of such employees, the requirement of age may be relaxed in such cases. The relevant observations in the matter of Keval Bana Gopal Mali and others (supra) reads as under: 5 "It is however, clarified in the interest of appellants and similarly situated others out of 173 that as and when the regular appointments would be made on the availability of the posts, weightage should be given to these persons in view of their period of work done in the Council and if it is permissible, requirement of age also may be related in their case." 6. The instant Writ Petition can also be disposed of by issuing clarification as has been done while disposing of L.P.A. No.123 of 1998, and also other connected Writ Petitions i.e. Writ Petition No.3469 of 2005 and Writ Petition No.3804 of 2005. Therefore, the instant Writ Petition is rejected, however, it is clarified that, in the interest of the employees, as and when the Corporation decides to make recruitment of fresh employees, the weightage should be given having regard to the services rendered by the Petitioners, and they may be granted preference by the Corporation by relaxing the condition in respect of age, if it is permissible in accordance with the prevailing recruitment rules. 6 7. Rule discharged on the terms indicated above. Writ Petition is disposed of accordingly. [K.K. TATED, J.] asb/JULY09/wp5187.09