wp222.11.odt 1
THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY
NAGPUR BENCH, NAGPUR
WRIT PETITION NO.222 OF 2011.
PETITIONERS: 1. The State of Maharashtra,
Department of Higher and Technical
Education, through its Secretary,
Mantralaya Mumbai.
2. The Director,
Directorate of Technical Education
Maharashtra State, 3, Mahapalika
Marg,P.Box No.1967,
Mumbai - 400001.
3. The Joint Director,
Technical Eduction Directorate,
Regional Office, Sadar, Nagpur.
4. The Principal,
Government Polytechnic,
Indala Parisar, Gadchiroli,
Tq. And Distt.Gadchiroli.
..VERSUS..
RESPONDENT: Kishor s/o Devidas Jambhulkar,
Aged about 29 yeas, Occu: Service,
R/o Govt.Polytechnic Complex,
Quarter No.Prajakta-4, Gadchiroli,
Tq. And Distt.Gadchiroli.
WRIT PETITION NO.223 OF 2011.
PETITIONERS: 1. The State of Maharashtra,
Department of Higher and Technical
Education, through its Secretary,
Mantralaya Mumbai.
::: Downloaded on - 09/06/2013 17:32:44 :::
wp222.11.odt 2
2. The Director,
Directorate of Technical Education
Maharashtra State, 3, Mahapalika
Marg,P.Box No.1967,
Mumbai - 400001.
3. The Joint Director,
Technical Eduction Directorate,
Regional Office, Sadar, Nagpur.
4. The Principal,
Government Polytechnic,
Indala Parisar, Gadchiroli,
Tq. And Distt.Gadchiroli.
ig ..VERSUS..
RESPONDENT: Moreshwar s/o Ghatu Yerewar,
Aged about 24 years, Occu: Service,
R/o M.I.D.C.Kodgal, Po.Pardi,Tq.
and Distt.Gadchiroli.
WRIT PETITION NO.224 OF 2011.
PETITIONERS: 1. The State of Maharashtra,
Department of Higher and Technical
Education, through its Secretary,
Mantralaya Mumbai.
2. The Director,
Directorate of Technical Education
Maharashtra State, 3, Mahapalika
Marg,P.Box No.1967,
Mumbai - 400001.
3. The Joint Director,
Technical Eduction Directorate,
Regional Office, Sadar, Nagpur.
::: Downloaded on - 09/06/2013 17:32:44 :::
wp222.11.odt 3
4. The Principal,
Government Polytechnic,
Indala Parisar, Gadchiroli,
Tq. And Distt.Gadchiroli.
..VERSUS..
RESPONDENT: Devidas s/o Keshao Sonule,
Aged about 32 years, Occu: Service,
R/o Ranmudza, Gadchiroli, Tq. and
Distt.Gadchiroli.
WRIT PETITION NO.225 OF 2011.
PETITIONERS: 1. The State of Maharashtra,
Department of Higher and Technical
Education, through its Secretary,
Mantralaya Mumbai.
2. The Director,
Directorate of Technical Education
Maharashtra State, 3, Mahapalika
Marg,P.Box No.1967,
Mumbai - 400001.
3. The Joint Director,
Technical Eduction Directorate,
Regional Office, Sadar, Nagpur.
4. The Principal,
Government Polytechnic,
Indala Parisar, Gadchiroli,
Tq. And Distt.Gadchiroli.
..VERSUS..
RESPONDENT: Suresh s/o Ganpat Sahare,
Aged about 37 years, Occu: Service,
R/o Govt.Polytechnic Complex,
"Prajakta-I,Gadchiroli, Tq. and Distt.
Gadchiroli.
::: Downloaded on - 09/06/2013 17:32:44 :::
wp222.11.odt 4
WRIT PETITION NO.226 OF 2011.
PETITIONERS: 1. The State of Maharashtra,
Department of Higher and Technical
Education, through its Secretary,
Mantralaya Mumbai.
2. The Director,
Directorate of Technical Education
Maharashtra State, 3, Mahapalika
Marg,P.Box No.1967,
Mumbai - 400001.
3. The Joint Director,
Technical Eduction Directorate,
Regional Office, Sadar, Nagpur.
4. The Principal,
Government Polytechnic,
Indala Parisar, Gadchiroli,
Tq. And Distt.Gadchiroli.
..VERSUS..
RESPONDENT: Rajesh s/o Devaji Govardhan,
Aged about 26 years, Occu: Service,
R/o Govt.Polytechnic College,
Indala Parisar, Gadchiroli, Tq. and
Distt.Gadchiroli.
WRIT PETITION NO.227 OF 2011.
PETITIONERS: 1. The State of Maharashtra,
Department of Higher and Technical
Education, through its Secretary,
Mantralaya Mumbai.
2. The Director,
Directorate of Technical Education
::: Downloaded on - 09/06/2013 17:32:44 :::
wp222.11.odt 5
Maharashtra State, 3, Mahapalika
Marg,P.Box No.1967,
Mumbai - 400001.
3. The Joint Director,
Technical Eduction Directorate,
Regional Office, Sadar, Nagpur.
4. The Principal,
Government Polytechnic,
Indala Parisar, Gadchiroli,
Tq. And Distt.Gadchiroli.
..VERSUS..
RESPONDENT: Wasudeo s/o Ganpat Gedam,
Aged about 37 yeas, Occu: Service,
R/o C/o Bhagwan Gedam, Govt.
Polytechnic College, Indala Parisar,
Gadchiroli, Tq. and Distt.Gadchiroli.
....................................................................................................................................
Mr.A.D.Sonak, Addl.Govt.Pleader for the petitioners.
Mr.F.G.Isaac, Advocate for the respondents.
....................................................................................................................................
CORAM : R.M.SAVANT, J.
DATED : 22nd July, 2011.
ORAL JUDGMENT.
1. Rule, made returnable forthwith and heard, with the
consent of the parties.
2. The above petitions involve identical facts and
common issues and are, therefore, heard and disposed of
together.
::: Downloaded on – 09/06/2013 17:32:44 :::
wp222.11.odt 6
3 The above petition and the accompanying Writ
Petitions take exception to the Judgment and Orders passed by
the Industrial Court in the complaint filed by each of the
respondents in the above petitions, who are working with the
petitioners. Though separate judgment is delivered in each of the
complaints filed by the respondent, all the judgment and orders
are dated 16th July, 2010.
4.
Shorn of unnecessary details, a few facts can be stated
thus –
The respondent in each of the above petitions is the
workman working with the petitioners. It is the case of the
respondents that they have been working with the petitioners
since the year 1999 on daily wages. It is further their case that
they have been paid daily wages less than their entitlement.
5. The respondent in Writ Petition No.222 of 2011 was
working as a Filter Operator and he has been working
continuously as such till 16/12/1996. It is his case that though he
has been working for whole of the month, he has been shown
working only for 20 days. The payment was also made to him on
such basis and it was seen to it that the monthly wages do not
exceed Rs.1760/-. It was the case of the respondent that the
::: Downloaded on – 09/06/2013 17:32:44 :::
wp222.11.odt 7
petitioners were showing artificial break in every month with an
ulterior motive so as not to give continuity. It was further the case
of the respondent that the work done by him was of a permanent
nature and the practice of giving a break and also continuing him
on daily wages was adopted so as not to go give him the benefits
of permanency and regularization. The respondent along with the
respondents in companion petitions, filed complaints invoking
Item No.6 and 9 of Schedule IV of the Maharashtra Recognition of
Trade Union and Prevention of Unfair Labour Practices Act, 1971.
6. The said complaints were resisted by the petitioners
and preliminary objections of the petitioners, who are respondents
in the said complaints, were that the respondent no.4 –
Polytechnic in question run by the respondent no.1 was not an
Industry and the complainants i.e. the respondents in the above
petitions were not workmen. It was denied that the respondents
were appointed as a Water Filter Operator. It was further denied
that the respondents were appointed on daily wages. According to
the petitioners, the respondents were appointed as and when work
was available. It was further denied that the respondents have
worked for 240 days in a calendar year. It was lastly denied that
work was of a permanent nature and yet the respondents were
kept on daily wages with a view to deny them the benefits.
::: Downloaded on – 09/06/2013 17:32:44 :::
wp222.11.odt 8
7. The Industrial Court on the basis of the pleadings of the
parties, inter alia, framed the following issues and has answered
them as follows –
ISSUES FINDINGS.
1. Whether the establishment/department
where the complainants work is an Industry ?… Yes.
2. Do the complainants prove that they are
working continuously as claimed ? …. …. Yes.
3. Do the complainants prove that the
respondents have engaged in the unfair
labour practice under Item 6 and 9 as alleged?.. Yes.
4. Whether the complainants are entitled to
the reliefs as prayed for ? …. .. As
per final order.
8. It is pertinent to note that though the issue as regards;
whether the establishment/department wherein the respondents
were working is an Industry, was framed and answered in the
affirmative. Significantly, no findings have been recorded in
support of the said answer. The impugned judgment and order
discloses that the findings have been recorded only in respect of
Issue Nos.2, 3 and 4. However, in so far as Issue no.1 is
concerned, though the issue is answered in the affirmative, one
does not find any findings in support of the said answer. Since the
::: Downloaded on – 09/06/2013 17:32:44 :::
wp222.11.odt 9
said issue goes to the root of the matter and since there have been
no findings recorded in respect of the said issue, though the said
issue is answered in the affirmative, in my view, the impugned
Judgment and Order dated 16/7/2010 is required to be set aside
and the matter is required to be relegated back to the Industrial
Court for a de novo consideration. The learned counsel appearing
for the Respondents in the above petitions does not dispute the
aforesaid position.
9. In the above petitions the petitioners have also sought
to rely upon certain material which was not before the Industrial
Court, which documents are inter alia the following –
i) A Chart showing the sanctioned post in
the Polytechnic,
ii) The Notification showing the sanctioned
Post filled in by the petitioners.
The respondents/workmen have also filed their
affidavit-in-reply. They also seek to rely upon material which was
not produced before the Industrial Court when it decided the said
complaint. The said material is inter alia, the chart showing the
vacancy position at the relevant time.
::: Downloaded on – 09/06/2013 17:32:44 :::
wp222.11.odt 10
10. Both the learned counsel i.e. the learned Additional
Government Pleader appearing for the petitioners and Shri
F.G.Issac, the learned counsel appearing for the respondent-
workman in each of the above petitions are ad idem that the
parties to be given an opportunity to lead further evidence in court
in support of the respective case. Hence, the following directions.
(i) The impugned Judgment and Order dated
16/7/2010 passed by the Industrial Court, which is the
subject-matter in each of the above petitions, is
quashed and set aside and the matter is relegated back
to the Industrial Court for a de novo consideration.
(ii) The complainant i.e. the respondent in each of the
above petitions would be permitted to amend the
complaint, if he so deems fit so as to incorporate any
additional contentions, which he seeks to place on
record. If such amendment application is moved and
allowed, the petitioners herein would be entitled to file
their additional written statement dealing with the said
case of the complainants.
(iii) The parties would be allowed to lead further
evidence in view of the contentious issue involved in
the above complaints as regards the claim of
permanency and regularization claimed by the
respondents in the above petitions.
::: Downloaded on – 09/06/2013 17:32:44 :::
wp222.11.odt 11
(iv) Needless to say that the documents, if any,
which they seek to file, be proved in accordance with
law.
(v) On remand, the Industrial Court to hear and decide
the respective complaints within six months of the first
appearance of the parties before it.
(vi) Parties to appear before the Industrial Court on
17/8/2011.
(vii) In the interregnum and till the decision of the
complaints, no precipitative action by way of removal
should be taken against the respondents unless for
disciplinary reasons.
Rule is accordingly made absolute in the aforesaid
terms with parties to bear their respective costs.
JUDGE
chute
::: Downloaded on – 09/06/2013 17:32:44 :::
