0108wp2655.11.odt 1/5
IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY
NAGPUR BENCH, NAGPUR
WRIT PETITION NOS.2655/2011 & 2680/2011
-----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
WRIT PETITION NO.2655/2011
PETITIONER :- Agricultural Produce Market Committee,
Warora, Tahsil Warora,
District Chandrapur,
ig Through its Secretary.
…VERSUS…
RESPONDENTS :- 1. Kavishwar Sakharam Watkar,
Aged 50 years, occupation service,
2. Rajendra Haribhau Meshram,
Aged 40 years, occupation service,
3. Praful Ramdas Wadafale,
Aged major, occupation service,
All residents of and post Madheli,
Tahsil Warora, District Chandrapur.
—————————————————————————————————–
Shri A. C. Dharmadhikari, learned counsel for the petitioner.
Shri V. P. Marpakwar, learned counsel for the respondents
—————————————————————————————————–
AND
WRIT PETITION NO.2680/2011
PETITIONER :- Agriculture Produce Market Committee,
Warora, Tahsil Warora,
District Chandrapur,
Through its Secretary.
::: Downloaded on – 09/06/2013 17:34:59 :::
0108wp2655.11.odt 2/5
...VERSUS...
RESPONDENTS :- 1. Baba Maroti Sarpate,
Aged 48 years, occupation service,
R/o at Post Shegaon (Bu), Tahsil
Warora, District Chandrapur,
(Near Forest Office).
2. Bhaurao Tatyaji Tonge,
Aged 47 years, occupation service,
R/o c/o A.P.Mowade, Hanuman
Ward No.1, Jatra Road, at Post
Warora, District Chandrapur.
3. Limeshwar Krushnaoraoji Upre,
ig Aged 38 years, occupation service,
E/o x/o Sheikh Vazeer, Near
Ikarjun Shop, at Post Warora,
Azad Ward, District Chandrapur.
4. Ashok Namdeo Ingle,
Aged 52 years, occupation service,
R/o Azad Ward, Near Gadge’s House,
Warora, District Chandrapur.
5. Sharad Dattuji Bodhe,
Aged 42 years, occupation service,
R/o Karmaveer Ward, Karmaveer
School, Azad Ward, Warora,
District Chandrapur.
6. Sheshrao Wadguji Jeurkar,
Aged 40 years, occupation service,
R/o at Post Jamni, Tahsil Warora,
District Chandrapur.
—————————————————————————————————–
Shri A. C. Dharmadhikari, learned counsel for the petitioner.
Shri P. C. Marpakwar, learned counsel for the respondents
—————————————————————————————————–
CORAM : R. M. SAVANT J.
DATED : 01.08.2011
::: Downloaded on - 09/06/2013 17:34:59 :::
0108wp2655.11.odt 3/5
O R A L J U D G M E N T
1) Rule with the consent of the parties made returnable forthwith and
heard.
2) The above petitions filed under Articles 226 and 227 of the
Constitution of India take exception to the common order dated
10/03/2011 passed by the Member, Industrial Court, Chandrapur, by
which order the interim application filed by the respondents herein came
to be allowed and the order to the following effect came to be passed.
“1] By interlocutory order the respondents are hereby
restrained from terminating the services of complainants unless
by due process of law and the appointment of candidates if
made on the basis of recruitment shall be subject to the decision
of this complaint.”
3) The respondents herein are the complainants in Complaint ULP
No.122/2004 and 3/2011, which they have filed alleging unfair labour
practice against the petitioner herein, in view of the fact that their services
have not been regularized and they have not been conferred the benefits
of permanent employees. It appears that during the pendency of the
::: Downloaded on – 09/06/2013 17:34:59 :::
0108wp2655.11.odt 4/5Complaint before the Industrial Court, the petitioner herein had initiated
the process of appointing candidates for two posts of clerks and three
posts of peons by following the procedure, which has been prescribed for
the same inter alia issuing advertisement, etc. The said selection process
is on the verge of being completed and appointment letters being issued
to the selected candidates.
4) The respondents herein, as mentioned herein above, had filed an
interim application in the Complaint (ULP) filed by them, which came to
be allowed wherein directions came to be issued that their services should
not be terminated without due process of law and secondly that the
appointments that would be made pursuant to the selection procedure
adopted by the petitioner would be subject to the result of the petition. In
my view, the second direction is totally unjustified and unwarranted, as
the selection in question is being carried out by the Agricultural Produce
Market Committee by adhering to the rules and regulations applicable
and also by following the procedure prescribed for the same. The
protection to the respondents in so far as the termination of their services
is concerned, can be justifiable, but in so far as the second part of the
interim order is concerned, the relief sought by the respondents has
nothing to do with the posts advertised, moreover, in view of the fact that
the said selection is being made by following the procedure for the same,
::: Downloaded on – 09/06/2013 17:34:59 :::
0108wp2655.11.odt 5/5the said direction is unsustainable. Hence, the said direction in the
interim order, which is to the following effect “the appointment of
candidates if made on the basis of recruitment shall be subject to the decision
of this complaint” is set aside, the above petition is allowed to the
aforesaid extent.
5) However, the contentions of the parties as regards the applicability
of the Industrial Employment Standing Orders are explicitly kept open.
6) Rule is accordingly made absolute in terms of the above with
parties to bear their respective costs.
JUDGE
KHUNTE
::: Downloaded on – 09/06/2013 17:34:59 :::
