1 wp-1537-11.sxw mmj IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY CIVIL APPELLATE JURISDICTION WRIT PETITION NO.1537 OF 2011 Maharashtra State Electricity Distribution ..Petitioners Vs. Vimal Sambhaji Jadhav & Anr. ..Respondents Mr. Abhishek Pungliya i/b M.V.Kinin & Co. for the Petitioners Mr. Umesh Mankapure for Respondent No.1 CORAM:- R.Y.GANOO, J DATED :- JULY 5, 2011. P.C. 1 Rule. Rule made returnable forthwith. 2 The contesting Respondent is Respondent No.1 who is represented by an Advocate Shri Umesh Mankapure. By consent of the Advocates appearing on behalf of the Petitioners and the Respondent No.1 the Petition is taken up for final hearing. 3 The Petitioners have challenged the order passed by the Learned Member of Industrial Court, Sangli, on 27-8-2010. By the said order, the Learned Member has dismissed the complaint filed by Respondent No.1 being Complaint (ULP) No.124 of 2009, as per the provisions of Maharashtra Recognition of Trade Union and Prevention of Unfair Labour Practices Act, 1971. 4 In the past husband of Respondent No.1-Sambhaji Jadhav was in the employment of the Petitioners. The Petitioners had framed a scheme. As per the scheme heir of the deceased workman is to be given work for 10 days in a 2 wp-1537-11.sxw month and is to be paid Rs.2,000/-. The Respondent No.1 was working in the said scheme for some time. After some time at the request of Respondent No.1, Respondent no.2 was given a chance to work in the said scheme which was promulgated. According to the Petitioners, Respondent No.2 worked with them till August 2005. This contention is disputed by Respondent No.1. The Learned Member recorded a finding that Respondent No.2 did not work at all with the Petitioners. 5 Be that as it may, Respondent No.1 made an Application before the Petitioners for seeking the employment under the said scheme. As that was not granted, Respondent No.1 filed a complaint (ULP) No.124 of 2009. 6 The Learned Member of the Industrial Court passed an order thereby dismissing the complaint. However, directed the Petitioners to provide job to the Respondent No.1 within a period of two months from the date of order dated 27-8-2010. The said order dated 27-8-2010 is challenged by the Petitioners by way of this Petition. 7 I have heard the Learned Counsel on both the sides. The scheme was promulgated in 2003. The Learned Member in the last few paragraphs of the impugned order come to the conclusion that it is possible for the Petitioners to give such job to Respondent No.1and based on that observation passed an order directing the Petitioners to provide job to Respondent No.1. The observations of the Learned Member cannot be accepted because whether to accept the request of Respondent No.1 to give her a job was within the purview of the Petitioners and that looking to the nature of the scheme, the Petitioners cannot be compelled 3 wp-1537-11.sxw to provide any job. 8 In my view, the Learned Member erred in passing the order directing the Petitioner to provide job to Respondent No.1. It is one thing to pass direction against the Petitioners and another thing to make a request to the Petitioners to provide employment to Respondent No.1 under the scheme, which was promulgated to accommodated near relatives of the deceased person. 9 Looking to the facts and circumstances of the case, it is possible that today if Respondent No.1 makes a representation to the Petitioners, the Petitioners may consider it sympathetically depending upon their need. In view of the above, the Petition is disposed of by passing following order: (i) The impugned order dated 27-8-2010 passed by the Learned Member of the Industrial Court in Complaint (ULP) No.124 of 2009 to the extent it directs the Petitioners to pay to the Respondent No.1 unpaid wages and provide job to Respondent No.1, is set aside. (ii)Respondent No.1 is free to make a representation requesting the Petitioners to provide her a job in the scheme which was promulgated in 2003. Respondent No.1 shall provide personal details of her to enable the Petitioners to consider her case on the basis of the facts so stated in the said representation. This Court is confident that the Petitioners shall consider the said representation sympathetically and decide the same on its own merits. If the representation is made, the same shall be considered as expeditiously as possible. (iii)The Petitioners had deposited amount equal to unpaid wages in this 4 wp-1537-11.sxw Court. Office to repay the said amount to Petitioners without security or guarantee. If the said amount is already invested, office to redeem said fixed deposit and pay to Petitioners the proceeds of said fixed deposit. (R.Y.GANOO, J.)