1 FARAD CONTINUATION SHEET IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE OF BOMBAY BENCH AT NAGPUR WRIT PETITION NO: 5586/2007 (Muzib Mohammed Shaikh and others vs. the Chief Officer, Municipal Council, Mul and others) ----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------- Office Notes, Office Memorandum of Coram Court's or Judges Order appearances, Court's orders of directions & Registrar's orders. ................................................................................................................................... Mr. M.P.Jaiswal, Adv.for petitioners. Mr. R J Kankale /V.D.Raut,Advs. for Respondents CORAM: SMT. V.A.NAIK,J. DATED: 21ST November, 2008. *** Heard learned counsel for the parties. 2. By this petition, the petitioners impugn the judgment passed by the Industrial Court, Chandrapur on 2nd August 2007 in Complaint (ULP) No.30/1998 dismissing the complaint filed by the petitioners for regularisation of their services. The petitioners were appointed on the posts of Clerks, Drivers, Librarians etc. by the Respondent -Municipal Council from time to time by separate appointment orders only for a specified period till the term in the appointment order expired or, till the candidates from the District Selection Board were made available. It was the case of the petitioners that they were working with the Municipal Council since the year 1996 and 1997 and it was necessary to regularise their services. 3. The Municipal Council filed its written 2 statement and submitted that all the complainants were working on their respective posts on ad-hoc basis; they were not recruited and appointed by following the due procedure of recruitment and selection; they were appointed only for a specified period of two months and it was clearly mentioned in the appointment orders that their appointments would be cancelled on receiving selected candidates from the District Selection Board. 4. The Industrial Court, Chandrapur by the impugned judgment dated 2.8.2007, dismissed the Complaint. 5. Mr M P Jaiswal, the learned counsel for the petitioners, submitted that the Industrial Court Chandrapur, was not justified in relying on the case of Secretary of State of Karnataka and others vs. Uma Devi and others 2006 (II) CLR 261 to dismiss the Complaint filed by the petitioners. It is submitted on behalf of the petitioners that Uma Devi's case could have been applicable to the cases where right was claimed on the basis of civil law and civil rights and the ratio laid down in the aforesaid decision could not have been made applicable to the Industrial law and the cases governed thereunder. Learned counsel for the petitioner relied on the decisions of the Hon'ble Supreme Court reported in 2008 118 FLR page 942; and 2008 116 FLR 1172 to substantiate this submission. It is, then, submitted on behalf of the petitioners that the Government Resolution 3 dated 8th March, 1999 also aimed at providing regularization to the employees like the petitioners and, in view of the Govt. Resolution dated 8th March 1999, the services of the petitioners ought to have been regularized and the Compliant ought to have been allowed. According to the learned counsel for the petitioner, the Industrial Court ought to have considered the second prayer of the petitioners for grant of 'equalwages for equal work' but, the Industrial Court erroneously failed to consider and grant the same. Learned counsel for the petitioners further relied on the decisions reported in 2007 2 CLR 555; 1983 (1) SCC Page 305 ; 2003 10 Scale page 388 and an unreported judgment of this Court in W.P. No.1612/1997,to substantiate his submissions. 6. The learned counsel for respondents, submitted that the judgment passed by the Industrial Court was just and proper as the appointments of the petitioners in this case were made only for a period of two months. In every appointment order, it was clearly mentioned that the services of the petitioners would be terminated/ cancelled as soon as duly selected candidate from the District Selection Board was made available. Learned counsel for respondents submitted that the petitioners were neither qualified nor their appointments were made in accordance with the due prescribed procedure and hence, in view of the relevant clause in their appointment orders, they could not have claimed regularisation of their 4 services. Learned counsel for the respondents submitted that the Industrial Court after considering the law laid down by the Hon'ble Supreme Court and this Court, has rightly dismissed the Complaint filed by the petitioners. Learned counsel for the respondents relied on the order passed by this Court on 4th February, 2008 in Writ Petition No.4785/2007 dismissing the Writ Petition which was based on similar facts. Learned counsel for respondents sought for the dismissal of the Writ Petition. 7. I have considered the submissions made on behalf of the parties and have also perused the complaint, written statement and the impugned judgment dated 2nd August, 2007. It is not the case of the petitioners that their appointments were made after following due recruitment procedure. It is also not in dispute that in every appointment order which was issued to the petitioners who were working as Clerks, Drivers, Librarians etc. that their services would be terminated after a period of two months and/ or till the duly selected candidate by the District Selection Board was made available. The Industrial Court rightly observed that there was a District Selection Board established for making recruitment of employees and the appointments of the present petitioners were made on ad-hoc basis, on the basis of the appointment orders which contained the relevant clause pertaining to the termination of their 5 services. The Industrial Court rightly observed that the complainants have not been been appointed through the Selection Board and their names were also not made available to the Municipal Council through Employment Exchange. Since the appointments of the petitioners are not in pursuance of the advertisement for filling up the vacant posts of Clerks, Drivers and Librarians, the Industrial Court rightly held that the services of the petitioners could not have been regularized. The Court further observed and rightly so, that the petitioners were aware of the fact that their appointments had not been done on a permanent basis and were ad-hoc appointments for such time till the vacant posts were filled up by adopting the due procedure of recruitment. The Industrial Court did not base the entire judgment only on the ratio laid down in Umadevi's case and considered the peculiar facts of this case as also the clause in the appointment order appointing the petitioners for a period of only two months, to dismiss the Complaint filed by the petitioners. The submissions made on behalf of the petitioners are liable to be rejected, mainly for the reason that the petitioners herein were not selected by the duly constituted Selection Committee and they were aware in view of the term/clause in the appointment order that their services would be terminated either at the expiry of the period of two months or as soon as the duly selected candidate was made available by the District Selection Committee/Board. The Govt. 6 Resolution dated 8th March, 1999 was not relied on by the petitioners before the Industrial Court Chandrapur. It is not clear whether it applies to the case in hand. It is also not the case of the petitioners in the Complaint filed by them before the Industrial Court that all the six conditions prescribed in the Govt. Resolution dated 8th March, 199 have been fulfilled in the case of the petitioners and, therefore, it was not possible for the respondent-Municipal Council to engage any person other than the petitioners. The judgments relied on by the petitioners cannot be made applicable to the facts of this case. The submission made on behalf of the petitioners that the Industrial Court ought to have considered the prayer for grant of 'equalwages for equal work'is also ill-founded as no such prayer was made by the petitioner in the Complaint. 8. For the reasons above-said, the writ Petition is dismissed with no order as to costs. JUDGE sahare