Bombay High Court
Chief Officer vs Smt. Pratibha Pradip Gaikwad on 1 July, 2011
Author: R.M. Savant
Bench: R.M. Savant
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 :::