Back
2018 Supreme(Bom) 684
IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY
A.K. MENON, J.
Ranjit Gurnath Chattre & Others – Petitioners
Versus
Bhiwandi Nizampura City Municipal Corporation & Another – Respondents
Writ Petition Nos. 568 of 2018, 767, 768, 1057 of 2018, 1453 of 2018 with Writ Petition (ST) Nos. 1375, 1610, 1701 of 2018
Decided On : 03-05-2018
For the Petitioners:R.S. Pai a/w Anand Pai i/b. Nikita Hinger, Yogendra Pendse, R.D. Suryawanshi, Advocates
For the Respondents:Manisha Jagtap i/b. J. Shekhar & Co., Advocates
Headnote:
Civil Procedure Code,1908 - Section 115 - Industrial Employment (Standing Orders) Act - Section 13(b) - Maharashtra Recognition of Trade Unions and Prevention of Unfair Labour Practices Act, 1971 - Section 28 - Compassionate employment - Claim to be appointed - Petitions challenge is common- petitioners in each of these petitions are different groups of workers engaged by City Municipal Corporation- All these matters are taken up for hearing together because petitioners counsel agreed that their cases could be covered by in Writ petition no- counsel for petitioners had mentioned these group of matters in view of proposed action of Corporation to revert petitioners to their respective parent posts- After notice to respondents interim protection came to be granted whereby Corporation was directed not to act upon impugned order directing petitioners to be reverted to their original posts it was felt that petition should be heard finally- Accordingly Court issue Rule- Rule returnable forthwith- Respondents waive service- By consent of all counsel matters were taken up for final disposal at stage of admission –Held, Petitioners involving similar issues being writ petition which were all disposed of by common order- Copy of this also is annexed to affidavit in reply- said writ petitions were challenging deputation of employees of same respondent Corporation who were initially appointed as Safai Kamgar in post as Incharge/Assistant Mukadam on same wages as are also identical and petitioners sought directions against Corporation to take steps to sanctioned posts for /Assistant - Industrial Court had found that there were no such posts sanctioned and there was no merit in contention of petitioners that they should be made permanent on their deputed posts- Corporation then intended to revert all Assistant Mukadams to their original posts and after considering case of petitioners petitions came to be rejected- Court rejected these contentions holding that appointment in posts of - was only a temporary ad-hoc arrangement- In present case we are concerned with job description of peons clerks drivers etc questions to be answered are Whether Resolution is binding upon Corporation in absence of sanction of these posts by State Whether continuance of employees for a long period of time in a job description fitting that of class III employees would entitle them be retained in such posts despite their permanent posts as class employees Whether there is any vested right in these petitioners to be retained in their present posts? For all aforesaid reasons answer to all these questions considering factual nature is in negative- In result these challenges cannot succeed- I therefore pass following order – Petition dismissed
1. In this group of petitions, the challenge is common. The petitioners in each of these petitions are different groups of workers engaged by the Bhiwandi Nizampura City Municipal Corporation. All these matters are taken up for hearing together because the petitioner's counsel agreed that their cases could be covered by facts in Writ petition no.568 of 2018. Mr. Pai, the learned counsel for the petitioners had mentioned these group of matters on 15th January, 2018 in view of the proposed action of the Corporation to revert the petitioners to their respective parent posts. After notice to the respondents, interim protection came to be granted whereby the Corporation was directed not to act upon the impugned order directing the petitioners to be reverted to their original posts, it was felt that the petition should be heard finally. Accordingly, I issue Rule. Rule returnable forthwith. Respondents waive service. By consent of all counsel, the matters were taken up for final disposal at the stage of admission.
2. Before dealing with the facts, it would be appropriate to generally describe the parties. Writ petition no.568 of 2018 is the lead petition which was argued at length by Mr. Pai and opposed by Ms. Jagtap. Writ petition no.767 of 2018 and 768 of 2018 are filed by 7 and 10 petitioners respectively. Writ petition no.1057 of 2018 is filed by an individual petitioner. Writ petition no.1435 of 2018 is filed by the two petitioners. Writ petition(St)no.1375 of 2018, 1610 of 2018 and 1701 of 2018 the petitioners in these petitions are all employees of the first respondent Corporation. They were initially appointed in the post of Safai Kamgar but were deputed to the post of clerks etc. during the period 1993 to 2014.
In Writ Petition(St) no.1701 of 2018:-
3. The 8 petitioners were working in the post of clerk between 5 and 10 years. They seek relief based on 2005 Resolution. The impugned judgment is based on Complaint (ULP)no.43 of 2017 passed on 12th January, 2018. An affidavit filed by Mr. Anil Vasant Pradhan taking up the contentions similar to Writ Petition no.568 of 2018.
Writ Petition no.767 of 2018:-
4. In this petition, 7 petitioners were working as Safai Kamgar claimed to be appointed as clerks between 10 to 15 years. They assail the order passed in Complaint (ULP)No.45 of 2017 relying upon the same 2005 Resolution. The impugned order is dated 12th January, 2018 declined to continue ad-interim order. An affidavit in reply has been filed by Mr. Anil Vasant Pradhan taking up similar contentions as in Writ Petition no.568 of 2018.
Writ Petition no.768 of 2018:-
5. In this petition, 10 petitioners were appointed as Safai Kamgar and deputed to be multi-purpose worker in the Malaria Department since 6 to 7 years. They assail the order passed in Complaint (ULP)No.25 of 2017 relying upon the same 2005 Resolution. An affidavit in reply has been filed by Mr. Anil Vasant Pradhan taking up similar contentions as in Writ Petition no.568 of 2018.
Writ Petition no.1057 of 2018:-
6. The petitioner claims to be appointed originally as Safai Kamgar and then clerk for 10 years. He assail the order passed in Complaint (ULP)No.134 of 2017 relying upon the same 2005 Resolution. An affidavit in reply has been filed by Mr. Anil Vasant Pradhan taking up similar contentions in Writ Petition no.568 of 2018.
Writ Petition no.1435 of 2018:-
7. In this petition, the petitioners viz. Ajay Gopal Parmar and Bhimrao S. Patekar had filed separate complaints bearing Complaint (ULP)Nos.202 and 203 of 2017. They are aggrieved by the impugned order dated 7th October, 2017 rejecting interim relief application Exhibit U-2 thereby declining to restrain the Corporation from sending the petitioners back to the original cadre. There is no affidavit in reply.
Writ Petition(St) no.1610 of 2018:-
8. There are 4 petitioners claiming to be working as Safai Kamgar betwee
