Bombay High Court
The Gondia District Central Co-Op. Bank ... vs Member Industrial Court, Bhandara And ... on 17 June, 2016
Author: A.S.Chandurkar
Bench: A.S.Chandurkar
WP-6686-15 1/8
IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY
NAGPUR BENCH, NAGPUR.
WRIT PETITION NO.6686 OF 2015
The Gondia District Central Co-operative Bank
Ltd. Gondia, a Co-operative Society duly
registered under provisions of Maharashtra
Co-operative Societies Act, Thr. Its Manager,
Gondia, Tahsil and Dist. Gondia. ... Petitioner
-vs-
1. Member Industrial Court, Bhandara
2. Lalita w/o Narayan Rangire,
Aged 39 years, R/o Gautam Nagar,
Wajpayee Ward, Gondia,
Tahsil and Dist. Gondia.
3. The Bhandara District Central Co-operative
Bank Staff Association, A recognised Union,
Thr. Its Secretary, having its office at
Ravendranath Tagor Ward, Bhandara,
Tahsil and Dist. Bhandara. ... Respondents
Shri A. M. Ghare, Advocate for petitioner.
Shri K. L. Dharmadhikari, Assistant Government Pleader for respondent
No.1.
Shri S. R. Bhongade, Advocate for respondent No.2.
CORAM : A.S.CHANDURKAR, J.
DATE : JUNE 17, 2016 Oral Judgment :
Heard. The challenge in the present petition is to the order dated 19/10/2015 passed by the learned Member, Industrial Court, ::: Uploaded on - 24/06/2016 ::: Downloaded on - 30/07/2016 05:42:27 ::: WP-6686-15 2/8 Bhandara, whereby the application for grant of interim relief moved by the respondent Nos.2 and 3 under provisions of Section 30(2) of the Maharashtra Recognition of Trade Unions and Prevention of Unfair Labour Practice Act, 1971 (for short, the said Act) has been allowed.
It is the case of the respondent Nos.2 and 3 that the respondent No.2 was appointed as Peon on 01/08/2003 on a vacant and sanctioned post. It is the further case that the respondent No.2 was regularly receiving her wages which were increased from time to time. It is then pleaded that about 25 daily wagers employed by the petitioner-Bank were regularised in the service by passing a resolution to that effect. According to the respondent No.2 as she was being denied the benefit of permanency, the same resulted in committing of unfair labour practice. On this basis the respondent Nos.2 and 3 filed complaint under Section 28 of the said Act stating therein that such unfair labour practice was committed under Item Nos.6 and 9 of Schedule-IV to the said Act. Alongwith the complaint, an application for interim relief came to be moved in which an apprehension was expressed that the petitioner may discontinue her services at any point of time. The interim relief prayed was that the petitioner be directed not to discontinue her services. On 18/08/2015, the Industrial Court considered the prayer for interim relief and directed the petitioners to maintain status quo in respect of service conditions of the respondent No.2 till filing reply.
The petitioner filed its reply in the proceedings and took the stand that the ::: Uploaded on - 24/06/2016 ::: Downloaded on - 30/07/2016 05:42:27 ::: WP-6686-15 3/8 respondent No.2 was allotted the work of cleaning utensils and drums along with filling drinking water on contract basis. It was pleaded that she was being paid by the Branch Manager for the work done. The relationship as employer-employee was denied. It was further stated that contractual work was allotted to a Society for the period from 01/02/2014 to 28/02/2015 and thereafter from 01/06/2015 till 31/05/2016. It was then stated that the petitioners refused to provide said contractual work to the respondent No.2 since 01/08/2015.
2. The parties were heard on the application for interim relief.
The Industrial Court came to the prima facie conclusion that the respondent No.2 was doing the work as per the documents placed on record. It then prima facie observed that the respondent No.2 was continuously working for period of 240 days and on that basis it allowed the application for interim relief by directing the petitioners to withdraw the oral order of termination with further direction to provide work to the respondent No.2 which she was performing prior to 01/08/2015. Being aggrieved, the present writ petition has been filed.
3. Shri A. M. Ghare, the learned counsel for the petitioner submitted that the Industrial Court was not justified in granting interim relief to the respondent Nos.2 and 3 in the manner in which the same has ::: Uploaded on - 24/06/2016 ::: Downloaded on - 30/07/2016 05:42:27 ::: WP-6686-15 4/8 been granted. He submitted that the petitioner has come up with a specific case that the respondent No.2 had not been appointed by the petitioner and that contractual work which was allotted to the Society was only up to 31/05/2016. He submitted that since 01/08/2015 the petitioner had refused to prove such contractual work to the complainant. According to him, on the day on which the ad interim order was passed which was on 18/08/2015, the respondent No.2 was not doing any contractual work and therefore by way of interim relief, the Industrial Court could not have directed the petitioner to provide work to her. No order of appointment was placed on record. According to the learned counsel, the decision relied upon in the case of Saudi Arabian Air Lines vs. Ashok Margovind Panchal and anr. 2003(1) MhLJ 745 did not apply to the facts of the present case and same could not have been relied upon while granting interim relief. He therefore submitted that by granting such interim relief, the petitioners were compelled to allot the work to the respondent No.2 without she being legally entitled for the same.
4. Shri S. R. Bhongade, the learned counsel for the respondent No.2 supported the impugned order. According to him, the Industrial Court was justified in the facts of the present case in granting interim relief. He submitted that while hearing the application for grant of interim relief on 18/08/2015, the petitioner had not given any say but had in fact sought an ::: Uploaded on - 24/06/2016 ::: Downloaded on - 30/07/2016 05:42:27 ::: WP-6686-15 5/8 adjournment for filing reply. He submitted that the stand taken in the written statement that the respondent No.2 was not continued from 01/08/2015 was an afterthought as said fact could have been brought on record when the application for interim relief was heard and the order dated 18/05/2015 was being passed. He then submitted that various documents had been filed on record as per list at Exhibit-U-4 which indicated a prima facie case in favour of the respondent No.2. According to him, the decision in the case of Saudi Arabian Air Lines (supra) was applicable to the facts of the present case and hence the interim order as passed did not call for any interference.
Shri K. L. Dharmadhikari, the learned Assistant Government Pleader appeared for the respondent No.1.
5. I have heard the respective counsel for the parties at length and I have gone through the documents filed on record. In the complaint filed by the respondent Nos.2 and 3, it has been pleaded that the respondent No.2 was engaged as Peon from 01/08/2003 and continued to discharge her duties. It is then pleaded that the wages received by her were increased from time to time. Resolutions passed by the General Body regularising services of some daily wagers were referred to on the basis of which prayer for regularisation had been made. The complaint was filed on 21/07/2015 on the apprehension that the services of respondent No.2 may be ::: Uploaded on - 24/06/2016 ::: Downloaded on - 30/07/2016 05:42:27 ::: WP-6686-15 6/8 discontinued and interim relief in that nature was sought. The order dated 18/08/2015 refers to the averments made in the application but no say was given by the petitioner. On that basis the order of status quo came to be passed.
6. The stand taken in the written statement is with regard to the nature of work allotted to the respondent No.2. It is denied that any appointment order was given though at the same time, It has been further stated that the contract was allotted to a Society and that the respondent No.2 was not given said work from 01/08/2015. Perusal of the impugned order indicates that the documents filed on record were taken into consideration. These documents included the entries in the pass-book showing receipt of wages from 30/09/2014 and onwards. It was then observed that the engagement of respondent No.2 from 01/08/2003 had not been specifically denied by the petitioner in its reply. The annual reports of the bank were also placed on record to indicate regularisation of 21 employees who were earlier working on daily wages basis. In paragraph 11 of the order, it is observed that the appointment order issued by the General Manager did not indicate that the appointment was either on contract basis or for specified working period. After considering this material on record and the stand of the petitioners that they were not providing work to the respondent No.2 from 01/08/2015, the interim relief came to be granted.
::: Uploaded on - 24/06/2016 ::: Downloaded on - 30/07/2016 05:42:27 ::: WP-6686-15 7/87. Considering the averments made in the complaint and those made in the written statement and after considering the documents which are placed on record by the respondent No.2, it cannot be said that the discretion exercised by the Industrial Court under provisions of Section 30(2) of the said Act calls for interference. The Industrial Court after considering all the documents which were placed on record along with the stand of the petitioner came to the prima facie conclusion that the respondent No.2 was engaged at least from 30/04/2014 till 31/07/2015 as per the payment vouchers. Considering the specific stand of the petitioners that they were not providing work to the respondent No.2 from 01/08/2015, this conclusion prima facie, appears to be reasonable.
8. The reliance placed on the decision in Saudi Arabian Air Lines (supra) is justified in the facts of the case especially when the complainant was filed on 21/07/2015. The direction is merely to provide work which the respondent No.2 was doing prior to 01/08/2015. It therefore cannot be said that the discretion has been wrongly exercised by the Industrial Court.
9. In view of aforesaid, I do no find that there is case made out to interfere with the interim order passed by the Industrial Court. However, in the facts of the case the proceedings before the Industrial Court are expedited and complaint ULP No.123 of 2015 is directed to be decided by ::: Uploaded on - 24/06/2016 ::: Downloaded on - 30/07/2016 05:42:27 ::: WP-6686-15 8/8 the end of December 2016. It is clarified that the observations made in this order are only for the purposes of deciding the interim application and the complaint shall be decided on its own merits without being influenced by these observations. The writ petition stands dismissed with no costs.
JUDGE Asmita ::: Uploaded on - 24/06/2016 ::: Downloaded on - 30/07/2016 05:42:27 :::