The court emphasized that the legality of the appointments was not the issue, but the unfair nature of the termination, and ruled that the peons could not be reinstated due to the temporary nature of their appointments.

JUDGMENT - MOHITE R.S., J.: - Since these writ petitions involve a common set of facts and same issues, the same are being disposed of by this common judgement and order.

2. The brief facts of the case are as under :

a) That, there was a requirement of peons in the Municipal Schools then run by Miraj Municipal Council, Miraj, District Sangli.

b) Therefore, on 22-12-1989 the Municipal Primary Education Board, Miraj which is represented by the petitioners in these petitions passed a resolution being Resolution No. 152, the translation of which is in the following terms.

"Looking at the work load of the board, in order to facilitate the work of the board and the Municipal Schools, it is necessary to appoint peons in these schools. Therefore, 45 peons, would be required to be appointed. Since the salary of these peons, will have to be paid through the Municipal funds, it would be necessary to take the permission of the Municipal Council. Therefore, it is necessary to correspond with the Municipal Council for obtaining their approval of the appointment of such peons. This resolution is passed unanimously."

c) On the same day, after receipt of the resolution passed by the board, Municipal Council considered the matter in its general body meeting and passed the following resolution, translation of which runs as under.

"Resolution No. 152 dated 22-12-1989 of the School Board, Miraj was perused and the report thereon made by the Chief Officer of the Municipal Council was also perused. Since, it is necessary to appoint 45 new peons in the pay scale of 200-3-230-5-255-V-5-280 plus allowances, this meeting approves creation of such posts. It is the decision of the house. The action be taken in accordance with Rules."

d) In this background, on 12-1-1990, 15-1-1990 and 1-2-1990, the Administrator of Municipal Primary Education School Board, Miraj issued orders of appointment appointing 44 persons as peons on a purely temporary basis for a period of 11 months.

e) After making these appointments, on 21-5-1990, the Administrative Officer of the school board informed the Municipal Council about the making of such appointments and requested for approval therefore be immediately given by the Municipal Council.

f) On 7-7-1990, Municipal Council Miraj wrote a letter to the Administrative Officer of the School Board stating that the appointments had been made although no posts have been created. It was stated therein that since no approval was granted by the Municipal Council, Municipal Council would not be in a position to give grants concerning the amounts payable as wages to these new appointments.

g) Faced with such a letter of the Municipal Council, on 11-7-1990, all the 44 newly appointed peons with whom we are concerned in these petitions were given notices terminating their services w.e.f. 11-7-1990. Reasons given for their termination, as contained in the termination letter could be translated as under.

"You had been appointed as peons on a temporary basis to work in the schools fun by this office on the expectation of approval being granted by the Municipal Council. Municipal Council has flatly refused to give grant to the board pertaining to your salary. In the circumstances you are being dismissed from service after closing hours from 11-7-1990."

h) On 16-7-1990 and 17-7-1990 three Complaints bearing (ULP) Nos. 331/1990, 339/1990 and 361/1990 were filed by the affected 44 peons before the Labour Court at Sangli. The Complaint (ULP) No. 331/1990 was filed by six persons, Complaint No. 339/1990 was filed by 11 peons and Complaint No. 361/1990 was filed by 27 peons. In these complaints, the Administrative Officer of the school board who has issued dismissal orders was impleaded as respondent No. 1 the chairman of the school board was respondent No. 2, Chief Officer of the Miraj Municipal Council was shown as respondent No. 3 and the president of the municipal council was respondent No. 4. All these complaints were filed challenging the dismissal

Click Here to Read the rest of this document