Back
IN THE HIGH COURT OF BOMBAY
(NAGPUR BENCH)
Khandeparkar R.M.S., Brahme P.S. Kanade V.M., JJ.
Maharashtra State Road Transport Corporation others .... Appellants.
Versus
Premlal Khatri Gajbhiye others.... Respondents.
Letters Patent Appeal No. 36 of 1999 (arising out of Writ Petition No. 2104 of 1997), L.P.A. No. 56 of 2001 (arising out of W.P.No. 2795 of 1997), L.P.A.No. 100 of 1999 (arising out of W.P.No. 2310 of 1996), L.P.A.No. 48 of 2000 (arising out of W.P.No. 2515 of 1996), L.P.A. No. 5 of 1997 (arising out of W.P.No. 1624 of 1996), L.P.A.No. 41 of 1999 (arising out of W.P.No. 2691 of 1996), L.P.A.No. 101 of 1999 (arising out of W.P.No. 2797 of 1997), L.P.A.No. 102 of 1999 (arising out of W.P.No. 2796 of 1997), L.P.A.No. 103 of 1999 (arising out of W.P.No. 2520 of 1996), L.P.A.No. 106 of 1999 (arising out of W.P.No. 2385 of 1997), L.P.A.No. 107 of 1999 (arising out of W.P.No. 2487 of 1996), L.P.A.No. 108 of 1999 (arising out of W.P.No. 1460 of 1997), L.P.A.No. 109 of 1999 (arising out of W.P.No. 1656 of 1997), L.P.A.No. 130 of 1999 (arising out of W.P.No. 1594 of 1997), L.P.A.No. 131 of 1999 (arising out of W.P.No. 2486 of 1996), L.P.A.No. 132 of 1999 (arising out of W.P.No. 1585 of 1997), L.P.A.No. 134 of 1999 (arising out of W.P.No. 2519 of 1996), L.P.A.No. 150 of 1999 (arising out of W.P.No. 25 of 1997), L.P.A.No. 154 of 1999 (arising out of W.P.No. 1467 of 1997), L.P.A.No. 171 of 1999 (arising out of W.P.No. 1457 of 1997), L.P.A.No. 172 of 1999 (arising out of W.P.No. 2707 of 1996), L.P.A.No. 173 of 1999 (arising out of W.P.No. 2514 of 1996), W.P. No. 3897 of 2000, L.P.A.No. 117 of 2002 (arising out of W.P.No. 3173 of 1993), decided on 25-4-2003.
Advocates appeared :
B.P. Dharmadhikari in L.P.A.No. 36/99 (arising out of W.P.No. 2104/97), L.P.A.No. 56/2001 (arising out of W.P.No. 2795/97), L.P.A.No. 100/99 (arising out of W.P.No. 2310/96), L.P.A.No. 48/2000 (arising out of W.P.No. 2515/96), L.P.A.No. 41/99 (arising out of W.P.No. 2691/96), L.P.A.No. 101/99 (arising out of W.P.No. 2797/97), L.P.A.No. 102/99 (arising out of W.P.No. 2796/97), L.P.A.No. 103/99 (arising out of W.P.No. 2520/96), L.P.A.No. 106/99 (arising out of W.P.No. 2385/97), L.P.A.No. 107/99 (arising out of W.P.No. 2487/96), L.P.A.No. 108/99 (arising out of W.P.No. 1460/97), L.P.A.No. 109/99 (arising out of W.P.No. 1656/97), L.P.A.No. 130/99 (arising out of W.P.No. 1594/97), L.P.A.No. 131/99 (arising out of W.P.No. 2486/96), L.P.A.No. 132/99 (arising out of W.P.No. 1585/97), L.P.A.No. 134/99 (arising out of W.P.No. 2519/96), L.P.A.No. 150/99 (arising out of W.P.No. 25/97), L.P.A.No. 154/99 (arising out of W.P.No. 1467/97), L.P.A.No. 171/99 (arising out of W.P.No. 1457/97), L.P.A.No. 172/99 (arising out of W.P.No. 2707/96), L.P.A.No. 173/99 (arising out of W.P.No. 2514/96), W.P.No. 3897/2000, L.P.A.No. 117/2002 (arising out of W.P.No. 3173/93), for appellant.
D.C. Mishra in L.P.A.No. 36/99 (arising out of W.P.No. 2104/97), L.P.A.No. 41/99 (arising out of W.P.No. 2691/96), for respondent.
V.G. Wankhede in L.P.A.No. 5/97 (arising out of W.P.No. 1624/96), for appellant.
C.V. Jagdale in L.P.A.No. 5/97 (arising out of W.P.No. 1624/96), L.P.A.No. 101/99 (arising out of W.P.No. 2797/97), L.P.A.No. 102/99 (arising out of W.P.No. 2796/97), L.P.A.No. 130/99 (arising out of W.P.No. 1594/97), L.P.A.No. 150/99 (arising out of W.P.No. 25/97), L.P.A.No. 172/99 (arising out of W.P.No. 2707/96), for respondent.
B.M. Khan in L.P.A.No. 106/99 (arising out of W.P.No. 2385/97), for respondent.
A.H. Jamal in L.P.A.No. 109/99 (arising out of W.P.No. 1656/97), for respondent.
M.M. Agnihotri in L.P.A.No. 134/99 (arising out of W.P.No. 2519/96), for respondent.
Maharashtra State Road Transport Corporation (Settlement), 1986 - Clause 9 - Scope - Service conditions of employees and financial matters are outside the jurisdiction of the Joint Committee.
2. Whether the Clause No. 49 of 1956 settlement stands replaced by Clause No. 19 of 1985 settlement and by Resolution No. 8856 of the appellant Corporation, or whether the Clause No. 49 of 1956 settlement operates in the field totally different from the one in which Clause 19 of the 1985 settlement operates, are the common questions of law which arise for consideration in all these letters patent appeals and on account of difference of opinion between two Benches of this Court on the said points, the matter had been ordered to be heard finally and decided by the Full Bench and that is how, all these matters were heard by this bench, and are being disposed of by this judgment.
3. The appellant Corporation is the State undertaking and the respondents are the employees of the said Corporation. Apart from the State Transport Employees Service Regulations framed under section 45 of the Road Transport Corporation Act, 1950, the service conditions of the respondents/employees are also regulated by the settlements signed between the Corporation and various Unions representing the employees of the Corporation. One such settlement was arrived at on 25-4-1956 of which Clause No. 49 which is the subject-matter of the dispute in the present proceedings, formed the important clause of the said settlement in relation to the service conditions of the employees and more particularly of daily wage earners. Even after 1956, various settlements were arrived at between the Corporation and its employees and two of the settlements were arrived at in the year 1968 and 1985 which included Clause No. 9 and No. 19 respectively which are sought to be relied upon by the appellant to contend that the same along with the Resolution No. 8856 have replaced Clause No. 49 of 1956 settlement.
4. It is the contention of the Corporation that the Clause No. 49 of 1956 settlement was cancelled and revised in the Joint Committee meeting held on 15-4-1978 and the Joint Committee was empowered to do so by virtue of Clause No. 9 of 1968 settlement and thereafter the Corporation in its meeting held on 31-8-1978 passed a Resolution No. 8856 by which the persons in employment of daily wages as on 31-7-1978 and those who were to be employed on daily wages thereafter. In case they were to complete aggregate service of 180 days in one financial year commencing from 1-4-1973 onwards were to be appointed temporarily in ephemeral vacancies in time scale of pay as from 31-7-1978 or thereafter and that such an arrangement was to be effective from 31-7-1978 onwards. It is their further case that in the year 1985, new settlement was reached resolving for absorption of daily rated workmen after completion of 180 days continuous service and that is why Clause No. 19 was included in the said settlement. In short, the Resolution of 1978 and Clause No. 19 of 1985 settlement modified and replaced Clause 49 of 1956 settlement in relation to the service conditions of daily wage employees of the Corporation. The contention of the appellant is seriously disputed and denied by the respondents contending that if the plea of the appellant is accepted it would virtually amount to denial of right of getting time scale to the respondents which is otherwise being enjoyed by other employees who are doing identical work. It has been strenuously argued on behalf of the respondents that Clause 49 of 1956 settlement has not been modified or altered or replaced by any of the clauses of any subsequent settlement including Clause 19 of 1985 settlement. It is also submitted on behalf of the respondent that Joint Committee was not authorized to deal with the financial matters relating to the service conditions of the respondents and, therefore, no resolution of the Joint Committee could replace Clause 49 of 1956 settlement.
5. The second ground of challenge relates to bar of limitation in the matter of complaints filed
An indispensable Tool for Legal Professionals, Endorsed by Various High Court and Judicial Officers
Please visit our Training & Support
Center or Contact Us for assistance
Scan Me!
India’s Legal research and Law Firm App, Download now!
For Daily Legal Updates, Join us on :
Back to top
