1
IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY
NAGPUR BENCH : NAGPUR
WRIT PETITION NO.2137 OF 2011
1) Chief Officer, Nagar Parishad,
Yavatmal, Taluq and District
Yavatmal.
2) President, Nagar Parishad
Yavatmal, Taluq and District
Yavatmal. ... Petitioners
- Versus -
Smt. Pratibha Pradip Gaikwad,
resident of Patipura, Yavatmal,
Taluq and District Yavatmal. ... Respondent
-----------------
Shri D.M. Kale, Advocate for the petitioners.
Shri D.C.R. Mishra, Advocate for the respondent.
----------------
CORAM : R.M. SAVANT, J.
DATED : JULY 1, 2011 ::: Downloaded on - 09/06/2013 17:25:48 ::: 2 ORAL JUDGMENT :
Rule, with the consent of the learned Counsel
for the parties made returnable forthwith and heard.
2) This petition takes exception to the order
dated 22/3/2011 passed by the learned Member of the
Industrial Court, Yavatmal whereby the revision
application filed by the respondent herein came to be
allowed and the respondent was directed to be
reinstated till the decision in the Complaint (ULP) filed
by her.
3) The respondent herein is the wife of one
Pradip Sadashiv Gaikwad, who was initially appointed
in the Construction Department of the Municipal
Council on the post of Coolie and lastly working in the
Health Department of the Municipal Council. The
husband of the respondent died on 20/7/2005 while so
::: Downloaded on – 09/06/2013 17:25:48 :::
3
working. As per recommendations of the Committee,
known as Lad Committee, the respondent herein was
appointed on the post which fell vacant on the death
of her husband. The respondent accordingly joined in
the post of Sweeper/Coolie in the Health Department
of the Municipal Council on 4/11/2009. Thereafter on
19/12/2009, the service of the respondent came to be
terminated on the ground that the respondent was not
entitled to such appointment as per the
recommendations of the Lad Committee as the said
recommendations would not be applicable to a person
working in the Construction Department. This
triggered off the respondent in filing Complaint (ULP)
No. 2/2010 challenging the said termination dated
19/12/2009.
4) In the said complaint, respondent filed an
application for interim relief under Section 30(2) of the
Maharashtra Recognition of Trade Unions and
Prevention of Unfair Labour Practices Act, 1971, which
::: Downloaded on – 09/06/2013 17:25:48 :::
4
came to be rejected by order dated 6/7/2010 passed
by the learned Judge of the Labour Court. The
respondent thereafter preferred revision application
being Revision (ULP) No.17/2010 before the Industrial
Court, Yavatmal, which came to be allowed and the
Revisional Court directed the petitioner Municipal
Council to allow the respondent to work on the post on
which she was appointed. This resulted in the
petitioner Municipal Council filing Writ Petition
No. 410/2011 in this Court. This Court by order dated
15/2/2011 set aside the said order passed by the
Industrial Court and remanded the matter back to the
Industrial Court for a de novo consideration.
5) On remand, the Industrial Court by the
impugned order dated 22/3/2011 decided the interim
relief application in favour of the respondent and
directed that the respondent should be allowed to work
in the post in which she was appointed by order dated
3/11/2009 till the decision in the main complaint. As
::: Downloaded on – 09/06/2013 17:25:48 :::
5
indicated above, it is this order, which is impugned in
the present petition.
6) The facts inter alia disclose that the
respondent herein being the wife of an ex-employee of
the Municipal Council was accommodated on the basis
of the recommendations
ig of the Lad Committee,
however, after her appointment on 3/11/2009, her
services came to be terminated on the ground that
recommendations of the Lad Committee could not be
made applicable to the post of Coolie in the
Construction Department of the Municipal Council and
would be applicable only to the post of Sweeper in the
Health Department of the Municipal Council.
7) Though submissions in support of and against
the impugned order have been advanced, namely, that
it is the contention of the learned Counsel for the
petitioners that the relief in the nature of final relief
could not be granted at the interim stage whereas it is
::: Downloaded on – 09/06/2013 17:25:48 :::
6
the submission of the learned Counsel for the
respondent that in the facts and circumstances of the
case, the interim relief was justified, in my view,
considering the nature of the controversy involved,
which is limited to the fact as to whether the
recommendations of the Lad Committee would be
applicable and, therefore, the respondent could be
given the benefit of the same, it would be just and
proper to direct the Labour Court, Yavatmal to hear
and decide Complaint (ULP) No. 2/2010 as
expeditiously as possible and latest by 31st December
2011. Since there is an interim order operating in the
above petition, which was granted on 2/5/2011, the
same would operate pending consideration of the said
Complaint (ULP) No.2/2010. The reinstatement or
otherwise of the respondent would be contingent upon
the decision of the said Complaint (ULP) No.2/2010.
Both the learned Counsel for the parties state that
their clients would cooperate in the early disposal of
the said complaint. The parties to appear before the
::: Downloaded on – 09/06/2013 17:25:48 :::
7
Labour Court, Yavatmal on 14/7/2011.
8) Rule is accordingly made absolute in the
aforesaid terms with parties to bear their respective
costs.
ig JUDGE
khj
::: Downloaded on - 09/06/2013 17:25:48 :::
