SupremeToday Landscape Ad
Back
Next
Judicial Analysis Court Copy Headnote Facts Arguments Court observation
Listen Audio Icon Pause Audio Icon
judgment-img

BOMBAY HIGH COURT - BENCH AT NAGPUR
THE CHIEF EXECUTIVE OFFICER, ZILLA PARISHAD, NAGPUR – Appellant
Versus
VIJAY S/O JANGLUJI KOKODE AND OTHERS – Respondent



Advocates:
['B P MALDHURE', 'FIROZ S KHAN', 'ADV', '', 'GP', 'SAURABH S BHENDE', 'SEJAL A LAKHANI', 'MANISH O SHUKLA', 'ANJALI S BHANDARKAR', 'SHREERANG P BHANDARKAR']

1

J WP-1591-2021.odt

IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY

NAGPUR BENCH : NAGPUR.

WRIT PETITION (WP) NO.1591 OF 2021

PETITIONER

(Orig. Resp. No.2)

:

The Chief Executive Ofcer,

Zilla Parishad, Civil Lines, Nagpur.

--VERSUS--

RESPONDENTS

(Orig. Complainant)

: 1. Shri Vijay S/o Jangluji Kokode,

Aged about 49 years, Occ : Service,

R/o. Plot No.19, Lahari Krupa Housing

Society, Rama Nagar, Nagpur.

(Orig. Resp.No.1)

2. The Divisional Commissioner,

Nagpur Division, Civil Lines, Nagpur.

3. The Industrial Court of Maharashtra,

Civil Lines, Nagpur.

Ms. B. D. Maldhure, Advocate for Petitioner

Shri. S. P. Bhandarkar, Advocate for Respondent NO.1

Shri. S. M. Ukey, Addl. GP for Respondent Nos.2 and 3.

CORAM

:

N. B. SURYAWANSHI, J.

RESERVED ON

:

05.07.2021

PRONOUNCED ON

:

20.07.2021

JUDGMENT

Hearing was conducted through Video

Conferencing and the learned counsel agreed that the audio

and visual quality was proper.

2.

RULE. Rule made returnable forthwith. Heard

finally with the consent of the parties.

2

J WP-1591-2021.odt

3.

This petition filed under Articles 226 and 227

of the Constitution of India takes exception to the order

passed by the Industrial Court, Nagpur below Exh-U-2 in

Complaint (ULP) No.108 of 2020, thereby granting stay to

the transfer order of Respondent no.1.

4.

Brief facts, necessary to decide the

controversy, are as follows :

The Respondent No.1 (for short, “the

Complainant”) filed Complaint (ULP) No.108 of 2020

contending that he is working on the post of Extension

Ofcer (Education) at Zilla Parishad, Nagpur since

16.06.2008. By the impugned order dated 31.07.2020,

he was transferred to Bhiwapur Panchayat Samiti. He

was relieved on 03.08.2020 and he joined at Bhiwapur on

12.11.2020. He unsuccessfully challenged the transfer

order by filing appeal before the

Divisional

Commissioner, Nagpur. He therefore challenged his

transfer order on various grounds by filing the complaint.

3

J WP-1591-2021.odt

Alongwith the complaint, he filed application

for interim relief under Section 30(2) of the Maharashtra

Recognition of Trade Union and Prevention of Unfair

Labour Practices Act, 1971 (for short, “the MRTU and

PULP Act”), seeking stay of the transfer order on various

grounds, including that he being the President of

registered Union i.e. Maharashtra Rajya Shikshan Vistar

Adhikari Sanghatana since inception, is entitled to

continue at Nagpur for a period of 15 years, in terms of

the Government Resolution dated 15.05.2014 (for short,

“the said G.R.”). The said G.R. provides that the tenure

of the President, Secretary, Treasurer and working

President of the recognized Trade Union functioning in

Zilla Parishad in Maharashtra State/District Levels can be

extended (Administrative tenure 10 years plus extended

tenure 5 years) at District Headquarters. The benefit of

the said G.R. was extended to the Complainant in the

year 2018. Therefore, he prayed for stay to the transfer

order.

4

J WP-1591-2021.odt

5.

The application was opposed by the Petitioner

(for short, “the Respondent”) claiming that since the

impugned transfer order is already acted upon and the

Complainant has joined on the transferred post, is not

entitled for any relief. It is further contended that the

Union of the Complainant is not a registered Union, and

therefore, he cannot claim the benefit of the said G.R.

The Complainant had enjoyed longest tenure at Nagpur

since last 12 years. The transfer is on Administrative

grounds and as per the policy decision. At Bhiwapur,

though there were 3 sanctioned posts, all were vacant,

and therefore, the Complainant was transferred there

and there is no unfair labour practice. It is also

contended that the Complainant has failed to submit a

certificate that his Union is registered under Sections 11

and 12 of the MRTU and PULP Act. The application of the

Complainant’s Union is pen

Click Here to Read the rest of this document
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
SupremeToday Portrait Ad
supreme today icon
logo-black

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

qr

Scan Me!

India’s Legal research and Law Firm App, Download now!

For Daily Legal Updates, Join us on :

whatsapp-icon Back to top