IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE OF BOMBAY BENCH AT AURANGABAD WRIT PETITION NO.5761 OF 1995 Maharashtra State Road Trnsport Corporation, Through Divisional Controller, Ahmednagar. ..Petitioner Versus 1.Jankiram Ambadas Adik, Age major, occ. Nil 2.Radhakishan Patilba Adik, Age major, occ. Nil Both residents of Khanapur, Tq.Shrirampur, Dist.Ahmednagar. ..Respondents WITH WRIT PETITION NO.5762 OF 1995 Maharashtra State Road Trnsport Corporation, Through Divisional Controller, Ahmednagar. ..Petitioner Versus Ramesh Sukhdeo Sangle, Age major, Occ. Nil, Residents of Khanapur, Tq.Shrirampur, Dist.Ahmednagar. ..Respondent … Shri M.K.Goyanka, Advocate for petitioners and Shri V.B.Anjanwadikar h/f Shri V.D.Hon, Advocate for respondents. ... CORAM : B.P. DHARMADHIKARI,J. Dated : April 15, 2011 ORAL JUDGMENT :- 1. Heard learned counsel for the respective parties. 2 WP/5761/1995 2. Common judgments delivered by the Industrial Court in Complaint (ULP) Nos.389 of 1994 and 404 of 1994 dated 28.9.1995 are questioned in these Writ Petitions by the employer. The Industrial Court had directed grant of permanency in favour of the respondents on the post of Building Inspector from the date of passing of its order. This Court had initially stayed that order. But upon applications moved under Section 17- B of the Industrial Disputes Act, appropriate orders have been passed and because of those orders, the petitioners have permitted both the respondents to work as Building Inspectors (in the Accounts Department) on last pay drawn. 3. Shri Goyanka, learned Advocate for the petitioners contends that the Industrial Court has exercised jurisdiction not available to it as the respective respondents never entered the services through any recognized mode. He has relied upon the judgment of the Constitution Bench in the case of Secretary, State of Karanataka Vs. Umadevi (AIR 2006 SC 1806). According to him, completion of 180 days is not sufficient to grant permanency. 4. Shri Hon, learned Advocate has invited attention of this Court to the findings of facts drawn by the Industrial Court to urge that the respondents have completed 180 days of service and therefore, the provisions of clause 34 of the Settlement have been rightly applied and they have been given permanency. 3 WP/5761/1995 5. Perusal of the impugned judgment delivered by the Industrial Court reveals that in paragraph No.8, while answering the issue Nos.2 and 3, it has referred to term No.14 on page No.55 of the Settlement Agreement and it has reproduced the same in Marathi thereafter. The reproduction shows a reference to the circular issued on 13.7.1980. The reference, therefore, is to the settlement / modification alleged to have taken place in 1978. The Industrial Court was not required to look into the clause 49 of 1956 settlement or then to subsequent judgments delivered by this Court and by the Honourable Apex Court. 6. Even today before this Court, respective counsel are not in a position to extend any assistance in that respect. To me, the controversy stands concluded because of the Full Bench judgment of this Court in the case of Maharashtra State Road Transport Corporation Vs. Premlal Khatri Gajbhiye (2003 (3) Mh.LJ.1025). Said view has been upheld by the Honourable Apex Court in the judgment reported in (2007) 9 SCC 141 (MSRTC VS. Premlal). 7. The Honourable Full Bench of this Court as also Honourable Apex Court have found that the grant of permanency as well as grant of regularization are two distinct things. The 1956 Settlement and clause 49 thereof are found to continue in force and Amendment of 1978 or subsequent Amendment of 1985 by clause 19 are found to be not relevant for purposes of operation of clause 49.The attention of Industrial Court 4 WP/5761/1995 could not be invited to said obligations and and/or niceties in the present matter. In this situation, I find, interest of justice can be met with by remanding these ULP complaints to Industrial Court for fresh adjudication in accordance with law. However, the existing status and service conditions of present respondents shall not be disturbed during pendency of those complaints. 8. In the result, Writ Petitions are allowed. Common judgment and order dated 28.9.1995 is quashed and set aside. Parties are directed to appear before the Industrial Court, Ahmednagar on 13.6.2011 and to abide by its further instructions in the matter. The Industrial Court shall attempt to decide the complaints on merits as early as possible and in any case by 30.9.2011. 9. Rule made absolute accordingly in both the Writ Petitions with no order as to costs. ( B.P. DHARMADHIKARI, J.) ... akl