Bombay High Court
The Agricultural Produce Market ... vs Shubham S/O Chakradhar Bodhare And ... on 26 April, 2018
Author: A.S. Chandurkar
Bench: A.S. Chandurkar
wps3220.17 etc.
1
IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY
NAGPUR BENCH : NAGPUR
Writ Petition No. 3220 of 2017
With
Writ Petition No. 3221 of 2017
With
Writ Petition No. 3222 of 2017
With
Writ Petition No. 3223 of 2017
With
Writ Petition No. 3224 of 2017
With
Writ Petition No. 3225 of 2017
With
Writ Petition No. 3226 of 2017
With
Writ Petition No. 3227 of 2017
With
Writ Petition No. 3228 of 2017
With
Writ Petition No. 3229 of 2017
With
Writ Petition No. 3230 of 2017
With
::: Uploaded on - 26/04/2018 ::: Downloaded on - 27/04/2018 01:57:39 :::
wps3220.17 etc.
2
Writ Petition No. 3243 of 2017
With
Writ Petition No. 3251 of 2017
With
Writ Petition No. 3252 of 2017
With
Writ Petition No. 3253 of 2017
With
Writ Petition No. 3254 of 2017
With
Writ Petition No. 3255 of 2017
With
Writ Petition No. 3256 of 2017
With
Writ Petition No. 3257 of 2017
With
Writ Petition No. 3258 of 2017
With
Writ Petition No. 3259 of 2017
With
Writ Petition No. 3260 of 2017
With
Writ Petition No. 3261 of 2017
With
Writ Petition No. 3262 of 2017
1. Writ Petition No. 3220 of 2017 :
The Agricultural Produce Market
Committee,
Pandit Jawaharlal Nehru Market
Yard, Kalmana,
Nagpur-440 008,
through its Secretary. ..... Petitioner
Org. Respondent
::: Uploaded on - 26/04/2018 ::: Downloaded on - 27/04/2018 01:57:39 :::
wps3220.17 etc.
3
Versus
1. Narendra son of Annaji Vaidya,
aged about 39 years,
occupation - nil,
resident of Plot No. 35-A,
Saibabanagar, Kharbi Chowk,
Ring Road, Nagpur.
.....Original Complainant.
2. Member,
Industrial Court No.1,
Nagpur.
2-A State of Maharashtra,
through its secretary,
Department of Co-operation &
Agricultural Marketing,
Mantralaya, Mumbai-32.
2-B Director of Marketing,
Maharashtra State,
Central Building, Pune. ..... Respondents
*****
Mr. U. A. Dastane, Adv., for the petitioner.
Mr. M. V. Mohokar and Mr. Rohit Joshi, Advs., for respondent
no.1.
Mr. A. M. Balpande, Asstt. Govt. Pleader for respondent nos. 2, 2-
A and 2-B.
*****
2. Writ Petition No. 3221 of 2017 :
::: Uploaded on - 26/04/2018 ::: Downloaded on - 27/04/2018 01:57:39 :::
wps3220.17 etc.
4
The Agricultural Produce Market
Committee,
Pandit Jawaharlal Nehru Market
Yard, Kalmana,
Nagpur-440 008,
through its Secretary. ..... Petitioner
Org. Respondent
Versus
1. Ku. Seema D/o. Ramkrushna Raut,
aged about 28 years,
occupation - nil,
resident of Plot No. 38,
Vikas Nagar, Wardha Road,
Nagpur.
.....Original Complainant.
2. The Member,
Industrial Court No.1,
Nagpur.
2-A State of Maharashtra,
through its secretary,
Department of Co-operation &
Agricultural Marketing,
Mantralaya, Mumbai-32.
2-B Director of Marketing,
Maharashtra State,
Central Building, Pune. ..... Respondents
*****
Mr. U. A. Dastane, Adv., for the petitioner.
::: Uploaded on - 26/04/2018 ::: Downloaded on - 27/04/2018 01:57:39 :::
wps3220.17 etc.
5
Mr. M. V. Mohokar and Mr. Rohit Joshi, Advs., for respondent
no.1.
Mr. A. M. Balpande, Asstt. Govt. Pleader for respondent nos. 2, 2-
A and 2-B.
*****
3. Writ Petition No. 3222 of 2017 :
The Agricultural Produce Market
Committee,
Pandit Jawaharlal Nehru Market
Yard, Kalmana,
Nagpur-440 008,
through its Secretary. ..... Petitioner
Org. Respondent
Versus
1. Suraj s/o. Diliprao Mohitkar
aged about 23 years,
occupation - nil,
resident of Plot No. 26,
Uday Nagar, Near Hanuman
Mandir, Ring Road, Nagpur,
Tah. Nagpur, Distt. Nagpur.
.....Original Complainant.
2. The Member,
Industrial Court No.1,
Nagpur.
2-A State of Maharashtra,
through its secretary,
Department of Co-operation &
::: Uploaded on - 26/04/2018 ::: Downloaded on - 27/04/2018 01:57:39 :::
wps3220.17 etc.
6
Agricultural Marketing,
Mantralaya, Mumbai-32.
2-B Director of Marketing,
Maharashtra State,
Central Building, Pune. ..... Respondents
*****
Mr. U. A. Dastane, Adv., for the petitioner.
Mr. M. V. Mohokar and Mr. Rohit Joshi, Advs., for respondent
no.1.
Mr. A. M. Balpande, Asstt. Govt. Pleader for respondent nos. 2, 2-
A and 2-B .
*****
4. Writ Petition No. 3223 of 2017 :
The Agricultural Produce Market
Committee,
Pandit Jawaharlal Nehru Market
Yard, Kalmana,
Nagpur-440 008,
through its Secretary. ..... Petitioner
Org. Respondent
Versus
1. Rakesh s/o. Rameshrao Bhoyar,
aged about 26 years,
occupation - nil,
resident of Plot No. 166,
Chandrabhaga Nagar,
Hudkeshwar Road,
Nagpur.
::: Uploaded on - 26/04/2018 ::: Downloaded on - 27/04/2018 01:57:39 :::
wps3220.17 etc.
7
.....Original Complainant.
2. The Member,
Industrial Court No.1,
Nagpur.
2-A State of Maharashtra,
through its secretary,
Department of Co-operation &
Agricultural Marketing,
Mantralaya, Mumbai-32.
2-B Director of Marketing,
Maharashtra State,
Central Building, Pune. ..... Respondents
*****
Mr. U. A. Dastane, Adv., for the petitioner.
Mr. M. V. Mohokar and Mr. Rohit Joshi, Advs., for respondent
no.1.
Mr. A. M. Balpande, Asstt. Govt. Pleader for respondent nos. 2, 2-
A and 2-B .
*****
5. Writ Petition No. 3224 of 2017 :
The Agricultural Produce Market
Committee,
Pandit Jawaharlal Nehru Market
Yard, Kalmana,
Nagpur-440 008,
through its Secretary. ..... Petitioner
Org. Respondent
::: Uploaded on - 26/04/2018 ::: Downloaded on - 27/04/2018 01:57:39 :::
wps3220.17 etc.
8
Versus
1. Nilesh s/o. Bhimraoji Timane,
aged about 26 years,
occupation - Nil,
resident of Satnavri, Post
Bazargaon, Amravari Road,
Nagpur.
.....Original Complainant.
2. The Member,
Industrial Court No.1,
Nagpur.
2-A State of Maharashtra,
through its secretary,
Department of Co-operation &
Agricultural Marketing,
Mantralaya, Mumbai-32.
2-B Director of Marketing,
Maharashtra State,
Central Building, Pune. ..... Respondents
*****
Mr. U. A. Dastane, Adv., for the petitioner.
Mr. M. V. Mohokar and Mr. Rohit Joshi, Advs., for respondent
no.1.
Mr. A. M. Balpande, Asstt. Govt. Pleader for respondent nos. 2, 2-
A and 2-B.
*****
6. Writ Petition No. 3225 of 2017 :
::: Uploaded on - 26/04/2018 ::: Downloaded on - 27/04/2018 01:57:39 :::
wps3220.17 etc.
9
The Agricultural Produce Market
Committee,
Pandit Jawaharlal Nehru Market
Yard, Kalmana,
Nagpur-440 008,
through its Secretary. ..... Petitioner
Org. Respondent
Versus
1. Anil s/o. Jagannathrao Charode,
aged about 40 years,
occupation - Nil,
resident of Plot No.62,
Road No.12, Behind Ajni
Police Station, Nagpur.
.....Original Complainant.
2. The Member,
Industrial Court No.1,
Nagpur.
2-A State of Maharashtra,
through its secretary,
Department of Co-operation &
Agricultural Marketing,
Mantralaya, Mumbai-32.
2-B Director of Marketing,
Maharashtra State,
Central Building, Pune. ..... Respondents
*****
Mr. U. A. Dastane, Adv., for the petitioner.
::: Uploaded on - 26/04/2018 ::: Downloaded on - 27/04/2018 01:57:39 :::
wps3220.17 etc.
10
Mr. M. V. Mohokar and Mr. Rohit Joshi, Advs., for respondent
no.1.
Mr. A. M. Balpande, Asstt. Govt. Pleader for respondent nos. 1,2-
A and 2-B.
*****
7. Writ Petition No. 3226 of 2017 :
The Agricultural Produce Market
Committee,
Pandit Jawaharlal Nehru Market
Yard, Kalmana,
Nagpur-440 008,
through its Secretary. ..... Petitioner
Org. Respondent
Versus
1. Mohammad Naeem s/o. Mohammad
Akram Pathan,
aged about 28 years,
occupation - Nil,
resident of Yadav Nagar,
Near Shifa Kirana Store,
Tah. Nagpur, Dist. Nagpur.
.....Original Complainant.
2. The Member,
Industrial Court No.1,
Nagpur.
2-A State of Maharashtra,
through its secretary,
::: Uploaded on - 26/04/2018 ::: Downloaded on - 27/04/2018 01:57:39 :::
wps3220.17 etc.
11
Department of Co-operation &
Agricultural Marketing,
Mantralaya, Mumbai-32.
2-B Director of Marketing,
Maharashtra State,
Central Building, Pune. ..... Respondents
*****
Mr. U. A. Dastane, Adv., for the petitioner.
Mr. M. V. Mohokar and Mr. Rohit Joshi, Advs., for respondent
no.1.
Mr. A. M. Balpande, Asstt. Govt. Pleader for respondent nos. 2, 2-
A and 2-B.
*****
8. Writ Petition No. 3227 of 2017 :
The Agricultural Produce Market
Committee,
Pandit Jawaharlal Nehru Market
Yard, Kalmana,
Nagpur-440 008,
through its Secretary. ..... Petitioner
Org. Respondent
Versus
1. Imran s/o. Ayub Khan,
aged about 29 years,
occupation - Nil,
resident of Taj Amma Colony,
Behind Akbar Diwan,
::: Uploaded on - 26/04/2018 ::: Downloaded on - 27/04/2018 01:57:39 :::
wps3220.17 etc.
12
Shailani Darbar, Big Taj
Bag, Tah.Nagpur, Dist.
Nagpur.
.....Original Complainant.
2. The Member,
Industrial Court No.1,
Nagpur.
2-A State of Maharashtra,
through its secretary,
Department of Co-operation &
Agricultural Marketing,
Mantralaya, Mumbai-32.
2-B Director of Marketing,
Maharashtra State,
Central Building, Pune. ..... Respondents
*****
Mr. U. A. Dastane, Adv., for the petitioner.
Mr. M. V. Mohokar and Mr. Rohit Joshi, Advs., for respondent
no.1.
Mr. A. M. Balpande, Asstt. Govt. Pleader for respondent nos. 2, 2-
A and 2-B.
*****
9. Writ Petition No. 3228 of 2017 :
The Agricultural Produce Market
Committee,
Pandit Jawaharlal Nehru Market
Yard, Kalmana,
Nagpur-440 008,
through its Secretary. ..... Petitioner
Org. Respondent
::: Uploaded on - 26/04/2018 ::: Downloaded on - 27/04/2018 01:57:39 :::
wps3220.17 etc.
13
Versus
1. Hukumchand s/o. Rameshraoji
Warhade,
aged about 29 years,
occupation - Nil,
resident of Bailwada, Post
Gumthi, Tah. Nagpur, Dist.
Nagpur.
.....Original Complainant.
2. The Member,
Industrial Court No.1,
Nagpur.
2-A State of Maharashtra,
through its secretary,
Department of Co-operation &
Agricultural Marketing,
Mantralaya, Mumbai-32.
2-B Director of Marketing,
Maharashtra State,
Central Building, Pune. ..... Respondents
*****
Mr. U. A. Dastane, Adv., for the petitioner.
Mr. M. V. Mohokar and Mr. Rohit Joshi, Advs., for respondent
no.1.
Mr. A. M. Balpande, Asstt. Govt. Pleader for respondent nos. 2, 2-
A and 2-B.
*****
::: Uploaded on - 26/04/2018 ::: Downloaded on - 27/04/2018 01:57:39 :::
wps3220.17 etc.
14
10. Writ Petition No. 3229 of 2017 :
The Agricultural Produce Market
Committee,
Pandit Jawaharlal Nehru Market
Yard, Kalmana,
Nagpur-440 008,
through its Secretary. ..... Petitioner
Org. Respondent
Versus
1. Shubham s/o. Chakradhar Bodhare,
aged about 22 years,
occupation - Nil,
resident of Plot No.30,
Ashtavinayak Nagar,
Jaitala Road, Nagpur.
.....Original Complainant.
2. The Member,
Industrial Court No.1,
Nagpur.
2-A State of Maharashtra,
through its secretary,
Department of Co-operation &
Agricultural Marketing,
Mantralaya, Mumbai-32.
2-B Director of Marketing,
Maharashtra State,
Central Building, Pune. ..... Respondents
::: Uploaded on - 26/04/2018 ::: Downloaded on - 27/04/2018 01:57:39 :::
wps3220.17 etc.
15
*****
Mr. U. A. Dastane, Adv., for the petitioner.
Mr. M. V. Mohokar and Mr. Rohit Joshi, Advs., for respondent
no.1.
Mr. A. M. Balpande, Asstt. Govt. Pleader for respondent nos. 2, 2-
A and 2-B.
*****
11. Writ Petition No. 3230 of 2017 :
The Agricultural Produce Market
Committee,
Pandit Jawaharlal Nehru Market
Yard, Kalmana,
Nagpur-440 008,
through its Secretary. ..... Petitioner
Org. Respondent
Versus
1. Roshan s/o. Prahladrao Hivase,
aged about 31 years,
occupation - Nil,
resident of Chitnavis Pura,
Near Police Chowki,
Zenda Chowk, Mahal,
Nagpur, Tah. Nagpur,
Dist. Nagpur.
.....Original Complainant.
2. The Member,
Industrial Court No.1,
Nagpur.
::: Uploaded on - 26/04/2018 ::: Downloaded on - 27/04/2018 01:57:39 :::
wps3220.17 etc.
16
2-A State of Maharashtra,
through its secretary,
Department of Co-operation &
Agricultural Marketing,
Mantralaya, Mumbai-32.
2-B Director of Marketing,
Maharashtra State,
Central Building, Pune. ..... Respondents
*****
Mr. U. A. Dastane, Adv., for the petitioner.
Mr. M. V. Mohokar and Mr. Rohit Joshi, Advs., for respondent
no.1.
Mr. A. M. Balpande, Asstt. Govt. Pleader for respondent nos. 2, 2-
A and 2-B.
*****
12. Writ Petition No. 3243 of 2017 :
The Agricultural Produce Market
Committee,
Pandit Jawaharlal Nehru Market
Yard, Kalmana,
Nagpur-440 008,
through its Secretary. ..... Petitioner
Org. Respondent
Versus
1. Akash s/o. Gangadhar Kuhe,
aged about 25 years,
::: Uploaded on - 26/04/2018 ::: Downloaded on - 27/04/2018 01:57:39 :::
wps3220.17 etc.
17
Occ. Nil, resident of Tarodi (B),
At Post Temsan, Tah.
Nagpur, Dist. Nagpur.
.....Original Complainant.
2. The Member,
Industrial Court No.1,
Nagpur.
2-A State of Maharashtra,
through its secretary,
Department of Co-operation &
Agricultural Marketing,
Mantralaya, Mumbai-32.
2-B Director of Marketing,
Maharashtra State,
Central Building, Pune. ..... Respondents
*****
Mr. U. A. Dastane, Adv., for the petitioner.
Mr. M. V. Mohokar and Mr. Rohit Joshi, Advs., for respondent
no.1.
Mr. A. M. Balpande, Asstt. Govt. Pleader for respondent nos. 2, 2-
A and 2-B.
*****
13. Writ Petition No. 3251 of 2017 :
The Agricultural Produce Market
Committee,
Pandit Jawaharlal Nehru Market
Yard, Kalmana,
Nagpur-440 008,
through its Secretary. ..... Petitioner
Org. Respondent
::: Uploaded on - 26/04/2018 ::: Downloaded on - 27/04/2018 01:57:39 :::
wps3220.17 etc.
18
Versus
1. Shital D/o. Subhashrao Turankar,
aged about 22 years,
occupation - Nil,
resident of Satgaon (Kinhala),
Butibori, at post Ridhora,
Tah. Hingna, Dist. Nagpur.
.....Original Complainant.
2. The Member,
Industrial Court No.1,
Nagpur.
2-A State of Maharashtra,
through its secretary,
Department of Co-operation &
Agricultural Marketing,
Mantralaya, Mumbai-32.
2-B Director of Marketing,
Maharashtra State,
Central Building, Pune. ..... Respondents
*****
Mr. U. A. Dastane, Adv., for the petitioner.
Mr. M. V. Mohokar and Mr. Rohit Joshi, Advs., for respondent
no.1.
Mr. A. M. Balpande, Asstt. Govt. Pleader for respondent nos. 2, 2-
A and 2-B.
*****
::: Uploaded on - 26/04/2018 ::: Downloaded on - 27/04/2018 01:57:39 :::
wps3220.17 etc.
19
14. Writ Petition No. 3252 of 2017 :
The Agricultural Produce Market
Committee,
Pandit Jawaharlal Nehru Market
Yard, Kalmana,
Nagpur-440 008,
through its Secretary. ..... Petitioner
Org. Respondent
Versus
1. Mohit s/o. Ganeshrao Thakre,
aged about 51 years,
occupation - Nil,
resident of At Post Gumathi,
KTPS Koradi, Tah. Nagpur
(Rural), Dist. Nagpur.
.....Original Complainant.
2. The Member,
Industrial Court No.1,
Nagpur.
2-A State of Maharashtra,
through its secretary,
Department of Co-operation &
Agricultural Marketing,
Mantralaya, Mumbai-32.
2-B Director of Marketing,
Maharashtra State,
Central Building, Pune. ..... Respondents
*****
Mr. U. A. Dastane, Adv., for the petitioner.
::: Uploaded on - 26/04/2018 ::: Downloaded on - 27/04/2018 01:57:39 :::
wps3220.17 etc.
20
Mr. M. V. Mohokar and Mr. Rohit Joshi, Advs., for respondent
no.1.
Mr. A. M. Balpande, Asstt. Govt. Pleader for respondent nos. 2, 2-
A and 2-B.
*****
15. Writ Petition No. 3253 of 2017 :
The Agricultural Produce Market
Committee,
Pandit Jawaharlal Nehru Market
Yard, Kalmana,
Nagpur-440 008,
through its Secretary. ..... Petitioner
Org. Respondent
Versus
1. Nilesh s/o. Sudamraoji Phalke,
aged about 35 years,
occupation - Nil,
resident of Bailwada, at
post Gumthi, Koradi Naka,
Sawarmendra Road (Rural),
Tah. Nagpur, Dist. Nagpur.
.....Original Complainant.
2. The Member,
Industrial Court No.1,
Nagpur.
::: Uploaded on - 26/04/2018 ::: Downloaded on - 27/04/2018 01:57:39 :::
wps3220.17 etc.
21
2-A State of Maharashtra,
through its secretary,
Department of Co-operation &
Agricultural Marketing,
Mantralaya, Mumbai-32.
2-B Director of Marketing,
Maharashtra State,
Central Building, Pune. ..... Respondents
*****
Mr. U. A. Dastane, Adv., for the petitioner.
Mr. M. V. Mohokar and Mr. Rohit Joshi, Advs., for respondent
no.1.
Mr. A. M. Balpande, Asstt. Govt. Pleader for respondent nos. 2, 2-
A and 2-B.
*****
16. Writ Petition No. 3254 of 2017 :
The Agricultural Produce Market
Committee,
Pandit Jawaharlal Nehru Market
Yard, Kalmana,
Nagpur-440 008,
through its Secretary. ..... Petitioner
Org. Respondent
Versus
1. Satish s/o. Diwakar Choudhari,
aged about 27 years,
occupation - Nil,
::: Uploaded on - 26/04/2018 ::: Downloaded on - 27/04/2018 01:57:39 :::
wps3220.17 etc.
22
resident of At Post Rama,
Tah. Nagpur, Dist.Nagpur.
.....Original Complainant.
2. The Member,
Industrial Court No.1,
Nagpur.
2-A State of Maharashtra,
through its secretary,
Department of Co-operation &
Agricultural Marketing,
Mantralaya, Mumbai-32.
2-B Director of Marketing,
Maharashtra State,
Central Building, Pune. ..... Respondents
*****
Mr. U. A. Dastane, Adv., for the petitioner.
Mr. M. V. Mohokar and Mr. Rohit Joshi, Advs., for respondent
no.1.
Mr. A. M. Balpande, Asstt. Govt. Pleader for respondent nos. 2, 2-
A and 2-B.
*****
17. Writ Petition No. 3255 of 2017 :
The Agricultural Produce Market
Committee,
Pandit Jawaharlal Nehru Market
Yard, Kalmana,
Nagpur-440 008,
through its Secretary. ..... Petitioner
::: Uploaded on - 26/04/2018 ::: Downloaded on - 27/04/2018 01:57:39 :::
wps3220.17 etc.
23
Org. Respondent
Versus
1. Prakash s/o. Nathuji Kamble,
aged about 34 years,
occupation - Nil,
resident of Kawatha, At Post
Sindhi (Rly), Tah. Nagpur,
Dist.Nagpur.
.....Original Complainant.
2. The Member,
Industrial Court No.1,
Nagpur.
2-A State of Maharashtra,
through its secretary,
Department of Co-operation &
Agricultural Marketing,
Mantralaya, Mumbai-32.
2-B Director of Marketing,
Maharashtra State,
Central Building, Pune. ..... Respondents
*****
Mr. U. A. Dastane, Adv., for the petitioner.
Mr. M. V. Mohokar and Mr. Rohit Joshi, Advs., for respondent
no.1.
Mr. A. M. Balpande, Asstt. Govt. Pleader for respondent nos. 2, 2-
A and 2-B.
*****
::: Uploaded on - 26/04/2018 ::: Downloaded on - 27/04/2018 01:57:39 :::
wps3220.17 etc.
24
18. Writ Petition No. 3256 of 2017 :
The Agricultural Produce Market
Committee,
Pandit Jawaharlal Nehru Market
Yard, Kalmana,
Nagpur-440 008,
through its Secretary. ..... Petitioner
Org. Respondent
Versus
1. Chakradhar s/o. Suryabhan Atkare,
aged about 35 years,
occupation - Nil,
resident of Plot No.72,
Teacher Colony, Kalmana
market, Tah. Nagpur, Dist.
Nagpur.
.....Original Complainant.
2. The Member,
Industrial Court No.1,
Nagpur.
2-A State of Maharashtra,
through its secretary,
Department of Co-operation &
Agricultural Marketing,
Mantralaya, Mumbai-32.
2-B Director of Marketing,
Maharashtra State,
Central Building, Pune. ..... Respondents
::: Uploaded on - 26/04/2018 ::: Downloaded on - 27/04/2018 01:57:39 :::
wps3220.17 etc.
25
*****
Mr. U. A. Dastane, Adv., for the petitioner.
Mr. M. V. Mohokar and Mr. Rohit Joshi, Advs., for respondent
no.1.
Mr. A. M. Balpande, Asstt. Govt. Pleader for respondent nos. 2, 2-
A and 2-B.
*****
19. Writ Petition No. 3257 of 2017 :
The Agricultural Produce Market
Committee,
Pandit Jawaharlal Nehru Market
Yard, Kalmana,
Nagpur-440 008,
through its Secretary. ..... Petitioner
Org. Respondent
Versus
1. Amol s/o. Wasudeo Daware,
aged about 26 years,
occupation - Nil, resident
of Peth, At Post Vyahad,
Tah. Nagpur, Dist.
Nagpur.
.....Original Complainant.
2. The Member,
Industrial Court No.1,
Nagpur.
::: Uploaded on - 26/04/2018 ::: Downloaded on - 27/04/2018 01:57:39 :::
wps3220.17 etc.
26
2-A State of Maharashtra,
through its secretary,
Department of Co-operation &
Agricultural Marketing,
Mantralaya, Mumbai-32.
2-B Director of Marketing,
Maharashtra State,
Central Building, Pune. ..... Respondents
*****
Mr. U. A. Dastane, Adv., for the petitioner.
Mr. M. V. Mohokar and Mr. Rohit Joshi, Advs., for respondent
no.1.
Mr. A. M. Balpande, Asstt. Govt. Pleader for respondent nos. 2, 2-
A and 2-B.
*****
20. Writ Petition No. 3258 of 2017 :
The Agricultural Produce Market
Committee,
Pandit Jawaharlal Nehru Market
Yard, Kalmana,
Nagpur-440 008,
through its Secretary. ..... Petitioner
Org. Respondent
Versus
1. Asmit s/o Ashok Lokhande,
aged about 28 years,
::: Uploaded on - 26/04/2018 ::: Downloaded on - 27/04/2018 01:57:39 :::
wps3220.17 etc.
27
occupation - Nil, resident
of Khapri (Railway), Wardha
Road, Nagpur.
.....Original Complainant.
2. The Member,
Industrial Court No.1,
Nagpur.
2-A State of Maharashtra,
through its secretary,
Department of Co-operation &
Agricultural Marketing,
Mantralaya, Mumbai-32.
2-B Director of Marketing,
Maharashtra State,
Central Building, Pune. ..... Respondents
*****
Mr. U. A. Dastane, Adv., for the petitioner.
Mr. M. V. Mohokar and Mr. Rohit Joshi, Advs., for respondent
no.1.
Mr. A. M. Balpande, Asstt. Govt. Pleader for respondent nos. 2, 2-
A and 2-B.
*****
21. Writ Petition No. 3259 of 2017 :
The Agricultural Produce Market
Committee,
Pandit Jawaharlal Nehru Market
Yard, Kalmana,
Nagpur-440 008,
through its Secretary. ..... Petitioner
::: Uploaded on - 26/04/2018 ::: Downloaded on - 27/04/2018 01:57:39 :::
wps3220.17 etc.
28
Org. Respondent
Versus
1. Santosh s/o. Babanrao Navghare,
aged about 38 years,
occupation - Nil, resident
of Udapur, Tah. Ramtek,
Dist. Nagpur.
.....Original Complainant.
2. The Member,
Industrial Court No.1,
Nagpur.
2-A State of Maharashtra,
through its secretary,
Department of Co-operation &
Agricultural Marketing,
Mantralaya, Mumbai-32.
2-B Director of Marketing,
Maharashtra State,
Central Building, Pune. ..... Respondents
*****
Mr. U. A. Dastane, Adv., for the petitioner.
Mr. M. V. Mohokar and Mr. Rohit Joshi, Advs., for respondent
no.1.
Mr. A. M. Balpande, Asstt. Govt. Pleader for respondent nos. 2, 2-
A and 2-B.
*****
::: Uploaded on - 26/04/2018 ::: Downloaded on - 27/04/2018 01:57:39 :::
wps3220.17 etc.
29
22. Writ Petition No. 3260 of 2017 :
The Agricultural Produce Market
Committee,
Pandit Jawaharlal Nehru Market
Yard, Kalmana,
Nagpur-440 008,
through its Secretary. ..... Petitioner
Org. Respondent
Versus
1. Jivan s/o. Chindhuji Deshmukh,
aged about 31 years,
occupation - Nil, resident
of At Post Aashta Kawatha,
Tah. Nagpur (Rural), Distt.
Nagpur.
.....Original Complainant.
2. The Member,
Industrial Court No.1,
Nagpur.
2-A State of Maharashtra,
through its secretary,
Department of Co-operation &
Agricultural Marketing,
Mantralaya, Mumbai-32.
2-B Director of Marketing,
Maharashtra State,
Central Building, Pune. ..... Respondents
::: Uploaded on - 26/04/2018 ::: Downloaded on - 27/04/2018 01:57:39 :::
wps3220.17 etc.
30
*****
Mr. U. A. Dastane, Adv., for the petitioner.
Mr. M. V. Mohokar and Mr. Rohit Joshi, Advs., for respondent
no.1.
Mr. A. M. Balpande, Asstt. Govt. Pleader for respondent nos. 2, 2-
A and 2-B.
*****
23. Writ Petition No. 3261 of 2017 :
The Agricultural Produce Market
Committee,
Pandit Jawaharlal Nehru Market
Yard, Kalmana,
Nagpur-440 008,
through its Secretary. ..... Petitioner
Org. Respondent
Versus
1. Atul s/o. Suryabhanji Atkare,
aged about 40 years,
occupation - Nil, resident
of Plot no.42, Sao Colony,
Sainagar, Bharatwada Road,
Nagpur, Tah. Nagpur, Distt.
Nagpur.
.....Original Complainant.
2. The Member,
Industrial Court No.1,
::: Uploaded on - 26/04/2018 ::: Downloaded on - 27/04/2018 01:57:39 :::
wps3220.17 etc.
31
Nagpur.
2-A State of Maharashtra,
through its secretary,
Department of Co-operation &
Agricultural Marketing,
Mantralaya, Mumbai-32.
2-B Director of Marketing,
Maharashtra State,
Central Building, Pune. ..... Respondents
*****
Mr. U. A. Dastane, Adv., for the petitioner.
Mr. M. V. Mohokar and Mr. Rohit Joshi, Advs., for respondent
no.1.
Mr. A. M. Balpande, Asstt. Govt. Pleader for respondent nos. 2, 2-
A and 2-B.
*****
24 Writ Petition No. 3262 of 2017 :
The Agricultural Produce Market
Committee,
Pandit Jawaharlal Nehru Market
Yard, Kalmana,
Nagpur-440 008,
through its Secretary. ..... Petitioner
Org. Respondent
Versus
1. Akshay s/o. Indrapal Gurnule,
::: Uploaded on - 26/04/2018 ::: Downloaded on - 27/04/2018 01:57:39 :::
wps3220.17 etc.
32
aged about 25 years,
occupation - Nil, resident
of Pratap Nagar, Maniley
Layout, Nagpur, Tah.Nagpur,
Distt.Nagpur.
.....Original Complainant.
2. The Member,
Industrial Court No.1,
Nagpur.
2-A State of Maharashtra,
through its secretary,
Department of Co-operation &
Agricultural Marketing,
Mantralaya, Mumbai-32.
2-B Director of Marketing,
Maharashtra State,
Central Building, Pune. ..... Respondents
*****
Mr. U. A. Dastane, Adv., for the petitioner.
Mr. M. V. Mohokar and Mr. Rohit Joshi, Advs., for respondent
no.1.
Mr. A. M. Balpande, Asstt. Govt. Pleader for respondent nos. 2, 2-
A and 2-B.
*****
CORAM : A.S. CHANDURKAR, J.
Date on which
arguments were
heard : 12th April, 2018
::: Uploaded on - 26/04/2018 ::: Downloaded on - 27/04/2018 01:57:40 :::
wps3220.17 etc.
33
Date on which the
the judgment is
pronounced : 26th April, 2018
JUDGMENT:
01. Since common issues arise in all these Writ Petitions, they are being decided together by this common judgment.
02. Heard finally with consent of counsel for the parties.
For sake of convenience, the facts in Writ Petition No. 3220 of 2017 are being referred to.
03. The respondent no.1 is the original complainant who had filed a complaint under Section 28 of the Maharashtra Recognition of Trade Unions & Prevention of Unfair Labour Practices Act, 1971 [for short, "the Act of 1971"]. In the Complaint, it has been stated that the respondent no.1 is qualified to hold the post of Junior Clerk and since 3rd December, 2011 he has been working on the post of Junior Clerk after his appointment. The post on which the respondent no.1 is working is a sanctioned post. However, instead of appointing him on a permanent and regular post, he has been appointed on temporary basis by giving artificial breaks. Till the filing of the complaint, he had ::: Uploaded on - 26/04/2018 ::: Downloaded on - 27/04/2018 01:57:40 ::: wps3220.17 etc. 34 completed about five years' continuous service. It is his further case that the Model Standing Orders framed under the Industrial Employment Standing Order Act, 1946 [for short, "the Act of 1946"] are applicable and on completion of 240 days' continuous service, he is entitled to be treated as a permanent employee. As the benefits of permanency and regularization were not being given, the respondent no.1 approached the Industrial Court by filing a Complaint under Item Nos. 5,6 and 9 of Schedule-IV to the Act of 1971. It was his case that the petitioner - Agricultural Produce Market Committee had engaged in unfair labour practice and therefore, the complainant was entitled for relief. Along with the complaint, an application under Section 30 (2) of the Act of 1971 came to be filed praying that by way of an interim order, the employer be directed to continue the services of the complainant and also to give benefits of permanency. Another application was filed seeking interim directions to be issued to the employer for providing work to the complainant.
04. The petitioner as employer opposed the Complaint, as made. By filing reply to the application for interim relief as well as the application for issuing directions, the employer relied upon the provisions of Section 2 (oo) of the Industrial Disputes Act, 1948 [for short, "the Act of 1948"] and took the stand that since the ::: Uploaded on - 26/04/2018 ::: Downloaded on - 27/04/2018 01:57:40 ::: wps3220.17 etc. 35 appointment of the complainant was for a specific period, he was not entitled to any relief of permanency thereafter. It was further stated that the Market Committee was governed by the provisions of the Maharashtra Agricultural Produce Marketing (Regulation) Act, 1963 [for short, "the Act of 1963"] and it was required to follow the relevant rules while making appointments. Similarly, necessary permission of the Director of Marketing was also required to be obtained and in absence of such permission, no relief could be granted to the complainant. On expiry of the period of engagement, the complainant was not entitled for any relief, whatsoever.
05. The learned Member of the Industrial Court heard the applications for interim relief as well as for interim directions. After considering the respective submissions, it was prima facie found that the complainants were in employment from 2012 onwards. They had been appointed temporarily on posts which were sanctioned, but had been kept vacant. Taking support of the provisions of Clause 4-C of the Model Standing Orders, it was observed that on completion of 240 days' service, the complainants had made out a prima facie case that the employer had indulged in unfair labour practice. After considering the various decisions relied upon by both sides, the learned Member allowed the applications and directed the petitioner-employer to ::: Uploaded on - 26/04/2018 ::: Downloaded on - 27/04/2018 01:57:40 ::: wps3220.17 etc. 36 provide work to the complainants as per previous practice till the decision of the complaint on merits. Thus, by order dated 11th May, 2017, the interim applications came to be allowed. Being aggrieved, the Market Committee-employer has approached this Court by filing the aforesaid Writ Petitions.
06. Shri U. A. Dastane, learned counsel for the petitioner, in support of the Writ Petitions, submitted that the Industrial Court was not justified in granting interim relief to the complainants. The appointment of each complainant was for a temporary period and without following the prescribed procedure. In absence of appointments being made by following the due procedure, the complainants were not entitled for the relief of regularization as sought in the complaints. Thus, if the final relief in the complaints could not be granted to the complainants, they would not be entitled for any interim relief. It was further submitted that the Model Standing Orders under the Act of 1946 were not applicable to the Market Committee and for that purpose, it was submitted that the adjudication by this Court in Writ Petition No. 5121 of 2006 [Agricultural Produce Market Committee, Nagpur Vs. Hon'ble Member, Industrial Court, Maharashtra, Nagpur & another]; decided on 7th September, 2011 [Coram : R. K. Deshpande, J.] as confirmed in Letters ::: Uploaded on - 26/04/2018 ::: Downloaded on - 27/04/2018 01:57:40 ::: wps3220.17 etc. 37 Patent Appeal No. 49 of 2012 was subjected to challenge before the Hon'ble Supreme Court and that challenge was pending. Interim stay had been granted to the effect and operation of the judgment of this Court and therefore, it was not open for the complainants to urge that the said Model Standing Orders were applicable so as to govern their service conditions. The appointments of the complainants were of a temporary nature and there was no approval granted by the Director of Marketing which was necessary under the provisions of the Act of 1963. It was further submitted that considering the nature of the orders of appointment, the engagement of the complainants would fall under the provisions of Section 2 (oo) (bb) of the Act of 1947 and therefore, at the end of the period prescribed, the complainants would have no further right to employment. The necessary approval granted by the Director of Marketing was only till 30th November, 2016 and the continuation of the complainants thereafter was without any authority of law. It was, thus, submitted that the Industrial Court committed an error in granting interim relief, especially when it could be seen that the complainants were not entitled for any final relief in the complaints. In support of his contentions, the learned counsel placed reliance on the following decisions:-
[a] Secretary, State of Karnataka & others Vs. Umadevi (3) & others [ (2006) 4 SCC 1], ::: Uploaded on - 26/04/2018 ::: Downloaded on - 27/04/2018 01:57:40 ::: wps3220.17 etc. 38 [b] State of U.P. Vs. Neeraj Awasthi & others [ (2006) 1 SCC 667], [c] Kishore Chandra Samal Vs. Orissa State Cashew Development Corpn. Ltd., Dhenkanal [ (2006) 1 SCC 253], [d] Nagpur District Central Co-operative Bank Ltd. Vs. Prashant Ashokrao Salunke & another [ 2016 (1) Mh.L.J. 706], [e] M/s. Rohini S. Kurghode (Mrs. Rohini K. Butte) Chendani, Koliwada, Kerubai Thanekar Chawl, Thane (W) Vs. M/s. E. Merck (I) Ltd., Plot No.1,
MIDC Estate, Taloja, Panvel, Distt. Raigad [ 2016 SCC OnLine Bom9220], and [f] Gajanan Vithoba Kamade Vs. Zilla Parishad, Chandrapur [ 2015 SCC OnLine Bom 3240].
It was, thus, submitted that the impugned orders are liable to be set aside.
07. Shri M. V. Mohokar and Shri Rohit Joshi, learned counsel for the respondent no.1 - complainants, on the other hand, while supporting the impugned orders, submitted that the learned Member of the Industrial Court rightly exercised the discretion while granting interim relief in the complaints. According to him, as per the interim orders passed, the Market Committee was merely directed to provide work to the complainants as per its previous practice during pendency ::: Uploaded on - 26/04/2018 ::: Downloaded on - 27/04/2018 01:57:40 ::: wps3220.17 etc. 39 of the complaints. According to him, this was the minimum relief to which the complainants were entitled considering the prima facie case made out. He referred to various resolutions passed by the Market Committee including the Resolution dated 24th May, 2017 to indicate that it was the intention of the Market Committee to implement the interim order as passed by the Industrial Court, but instead the Writ Petitions came to be filed challenging the said interim orders. According to him, in the reply filed before the Industrial Court, no stand was taken that the Model Standing Orders were not applicable to the Market Committee. It was submitted that in Writ Petition No. 5121 of 2006, this Court had held that the Model Standing Orders framed under the Act of 1946 were applicable and even though there was a challenge to that judgment, it was only the effect of the final order that was stayed by the Hon'ble Supreme Court. It was then submitted that there was no question of the provisions of Section 2 (oo) (bb) of the Act of 1947 becoming applicable. The posts held by the complainants were sanctioned and were vacant. Work was available and merely by giving temporary orders of appointment, the complainants could not be deprived of the benefits of permanency. To substantiate his contention that work was available with the Market Committee, he referred to the affidavit filed by the complainant in Writ Petition No. 3253 of 2017. As per that affidavit, the Market Committee had ::: Uploaded on - 26/04/2018 ::: Downloaded on - 27/04/2018 01:57:40 ::: wps3220.17 etc. 40 engaged other persons to do the same work which the complainants were doing earlier. Thus, instead of complying with the interim orders, the Market Committee intended to appoint other persons again in a temporary manner. He also referred to the rejoinder filed on behalf of the petitioner in Writ Petition No. 3220 of 2017 and submitted that the Market Committee intended to outsource the work which was being done by the complainants. According to him, the direction as issued did not cause any prejudice to the Market Committee as it had been directed merely to follow its earlier practice. There was no direction to pay any higher amounts to the complainants and the complainants were entitled to be paid for the posts occupied by them. He, thus, submitted that in absence of any jurisdictional error, no case was made out to interfere with the interim order passed by the Industrial Court. In support of his submissions, the learned counsel placed reliance on the decisions in [1] Anna Pandurang Vaidya, since deceased, through L.Rs. & others Vs. Nagpur Agricultural Produce Market Committee through its Chairman & others [ 2009 II CLR 880], [2] Hongkong & Shanghai Banking Corpn Ltd. Vs. Govt. of India & another [ 2009-III-LLJ-62 (SC)], [3] Ashree Chamuundi Mopeds Ltd. Vs. Church of South India Trust Association, CSI Cinod Secretariat, Madras [ (1992) 3 SSC 1], [4] Oil & Natural Gas Corporation Ltd. Vs. Petroleum Coal Labour ::: Uploaded on - 26/04/2018 ::: Downloaded on - 27/04/2018 01:57:40 ::: wps3220.17 etc. 41 Union & others [ (2015) 6 SCC 494], [5] Saudi Arbian Air Lines Vs. Ashok Margovind Panchal & another [ 2003 (1) Mh.L.J. 745], and judgment of Single Judge of this Court in Writ Petition No. 6686 of 2015 [The Gondia Distt. Central Co-op. Bank Ltd. Gondia Vs. Member, Industrial Court, Bhandara & two others].
08. The learned Assistant Govt. Pleader for respondent nos. 2-A and 2-B, submitted that said respondents had been joined as per directions issued by this Court. It was for the Market Committee to substantiate its contentions as to why the impugned orders were liable to be set aside.
09. I have heard the learned counsel for the parties at length and I have given due consideration to the respective submissions.
10. It is to be noted that what is under challenge is an interlocutory order passed by the Industrial Court during pendency of the complaints filed by the workmen. The impugned orders granting interim relief would, therefore, have to be examined on that premise, especially when the parties are yet to lead their evidence and substantiate their respective contentions.
::: Uploaded on - 26/04/2018 ::: Downloaded on - 27/04/2018 01:57:40 :::
wps3220.17 etc. 42
11. The material on record placed by the complainants is in the form of various appointment orders that have been issued by the Market Committee since the year 2011-12 for periods ranging upto six months at a time. After giving temporary breaks, complainants have been again continued on the same posts. It has come on record that there are about 238 sanctioned posts with the Market Committee, out of which 128 posts are vacant and 110 posts have been filled in. It is also a matter of record that the Director of Marketing has from time to time granted permission to fill in the posts on temporary basis and as per communication dated 01st April, 2017 while considering a similar proposal for granting permission to appoint sixty employees on daily wages, a query has been made by the Director of Marketing, Pune, as to why it was necessary to engage employees on daily wages, instead of recruiting them on a permanent basis. It is, thus, clear that there are posts vacant with the Market Committee and as work is also available, the Market Committee has been making temporary arrangements by engaging employees on daily wages for periods ranging upto six months. The fact that work is also available is further substantiated by the affidavits filed by the respondents-complainants in Writ Petition Nos. 3220 of 2017 and 3225 of 2017. Further, in the affidavit filed on behalf of the Secretary of the Market Committee dated 10th April, 2018, it has been stated that the Market Committee ::: Uploaded on - 26/04/2018 ::: Downloaded on - 27/04/2018 01:57:40 ::: wps3220.17 etc. 43 is considering the aspect of outsourcing various operations through third parties and that steps are being contemplated in that regard. Be that as it may, as of today, the record indicates that the number of sanctioned posts has not been reduced and about 128 posts are still vacant.
12. When the issue in hand is viewed in the aforesaid context, it can be seen that it is the case of the complainants that having been engaged since the year 2011-12 on temporary basis for a period of almost five years, they are entitled for regularization. The Market Committee seeks to justify such temporary engagement on the ground that necessary permissions are granted by the Director of Marketing only for a limited period. Whether the complainants are entitled for the relief of regularization is a matter to be decided at the final stage. At this stage, the only direction issued by the Industrial Court is to provide work to the complainants as per the previous practice. In other words, the Market Committee has been merely directed to continue to provide work to the complainants as before. The posts in question are that of Senior Clerks, Junior Clerks, Gatemen/Peons. In the light of the material placed by the complainants before the Industrial Court as well as before this Court, I find that the interim direction issued by the Industrial Court is justified not warranting any ::: Uploaded on - 26/04/2018 ::: Downloaded on - 27/04/2018 01:57:40 ::: wps3220.17 etc. 44 interference in exercise of writ jurisdiction.
13. As regards the various decisions relied upon by both sides in support of their respective contentions, I find that at this stage, it is not necessary to express any opinion on the same in the light of the facts noted herein above. Whether the complainants are entitled for the relief of regularization or whether by virtue of provisions of Section 2 (oo) (bb) of the Act of 1947, they are dis-entitled for any relief whatsoever, is a matter to be finally adjudicated. Similarly, the question as regards applicability of the Model Standing Orders under the Act of 1946 is pending final adjudication. At this prima facie stage, when it has been demonstrated on record that sanctioned posts are vacant, the Market Committee is required to carry out its duties by engaging the complainants albeit in a temporary manner, that arrangement which has been permitted to be continued does not deserve to be disturbed. The interest of the Market Committee can be protected by observing that this interim arrangement would be subject to final adjudication of the complaints and merely because Industrial Court has granted interim relief would by itself not weigh with the Court while deciding the complaints finally. This Court, therefore, refrains from making any observations with regard to the applicability of the decisions relied upon, especially when they all relate to final ::: Uploaded on - 26/04/2018 ::: Downloaded on - 27/04/2018 01:57:40 ::: wps3220.17 etc. 45 adjudication of the disputes therein.
14. I, therefore, find that the Industrial Court did not commit any jurisdictional error by directing the Market Committee to provide work to the complainants as per previous practice till the complaints are decided on merits. By observing that the interim arrangement would not cause prejudice to the Market Committee when the Complaints are finally decided and by clarifying that observations made in this order are only for considering the present challenge, the Writ Petitions are dismissed with no order as to costs. In the facts of the case, the Complaints pending before the Industrial Court shall be decided expeditiously.
15. At this stage, learned counsel for the petitioner seeks time of fifteen days to take further steps. This request is opposed by the learned counsel for respondent no.1.
As the interim orders are operating since 26th May, 2017, the present judgment shall take effect after a period of fifteen days from today.
Judge
-0-0-0-0- |hedau| ::: Uploaded on - 26/04/2018 ::: Downloaded on - 27/04/2018 01:57:40 ::: wps3220.17 etc. 46 ::: Uploaded on - 26/04/2018 ::: Downloaded on - 27/04/2018 01:57:40 :::