ORAL JUDGMENT :- Rule. Rule is made returnable forthw finally heard with consent of both the parties.

2. Originally in all twenty-five (25) petitioners filed the present assailing the judgment of the Industrial Tribunal, Dhule in Complaint 144 of 2004. Out of them, the petitioners No. 12 to 22, 24 and 25 withdrew petition since they were absorbed and regularized in newly formed Na District, protecting their promotions in Class III cadre. The petitioners. 11 and 23 are the only aggrieved persons now and the petition is pres service only to their extent. They were Class IV employees working establishment of Dhule Zilla Parishad before they were temporarily promoted class III cadre on 18th March, 1997. All of them are promotees and we promotions in keeping the relevant recruitment rules. Rule 5 of Maharash Parishads District Services (Recruitment) Rules, 1967, provides for appointment to the class III posts by promotion as well as nomination. Thus, there sources of appointment and the only barrier created by Rule 6 is t promotional posts shall not be filled in excess of 50%. Thus, the recruitment rules provide for filling up of promotional posts to the extent of 50 promotional posts are required to be filled up through the Departmental Promotion Committee (DPC). The promotions of all the petitioner accordingly made through appropriate process by the DPC. They went eligible and as such were promoted to the class III cadre and since 1997 technical working on the promotional posts without interruption, though for technical purpose gap of one day was given while revising the orders of promotion from to time. Still, however, they were not regularized in the promotional posts in of continuous service in such posts and the incidental benefits, such as increments or the benefit of assured career progression scheme etc., were not made available to them. Feeling aggrieved, they filed a complaint (ULP) No. 2004 alleging that the Zilla Parishad, Dhule/respondent had adopted unfair labour practice.

3. The respondent-Zilla Parishad contended that the petitioners were oted on ad hoc basis, from time to time, only in order to fill up the posts as gap arrangement. They were not given regular promotions and as such they of claim any right. The Zilla Parishad contended that the petitioners cannot regularization when the regular procedure regarding the assessment of city and availability of sanctioned posts was not properly considered. One of contentions of the respondent was that only 25% of the posts could be filled up promotion in view of the Government Resolution dated 15th April, 1991.respondent further relied upon yet another Government Resolution dated August, 1996 which provided for temporary promotions as well temporary nations to the class III posts. The respondent submitted that it was not feasible to regularize the services of the petitioners and there was no unfair labour practice as such.

4. The learned Industrial Tribunal considered the rival contentions and held the promotions of the petitioners were purely temporary and they could not been regarded as regular promotees. The learned Industrial Tribunal further observed that the conduct of the petitioners was eloquent inasmuch as, they never bled about giving of one days gap and accepted the promotional orders d from time to time. The Industrial Court further observed that the petitioners cannot claim regularization when the promotions were only by way of gap arrangement. Consequently, the complaint filed by the petitioners came

rejected with a direction that the case of each of them shall be considered regularization as and when they are found eligible.

5. The learned Counsel Shri Shelke contended that the approach of the Industrial Court is erroneous. He points out that for several years the petitioners working in Class III cadre. He further points out that the petitioners were d eligible for promotion. He points out that the prom

Click Here to Read the rest of this document