Dismissed

Nanded Zilha Dekhrekh Sahakari Sanstha Maryadit Nanded Thr Chief Executive Officer v. Uttam Sampatrao Jondhale

Bombay HC20 Dec 2011WP/8218/2011

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

This writ petition challenged an Industrial Court order granting permanency since 2005 to a permanent probationer. The petitioner argued that the appointment was illegal due to a recruitment ban and the salary structure differed from regular employees. The HIGH COURT rejected these arguments, finding unfair labour practice and dismissed the petition.

What did the court decide?

No order as to costs.

Nanded Zilha Dekhrekh Sahakari Sanstha… — Labour and Industrial Disputes | Bombay HC (2011)

¶1

¶2

W.P.No.8218/11

¶3

 FARAD CONTINUATION SHEET NO.

¶4

IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY

¶5

 APPELLATE SIDE, BENCH AT AURANGABAD

¶6

WRIT PETITION NO.8218 OF 2011

¶7

Office Notes, Office
Memoranda of Coram,
appearances, Court's
orders or directions
andRegistrar's
orders.

¶8

Court's or Judge's orders

¶9

Mr.G.D.Kale, advocate for the petitioner.
Mr.S.A.Nagargoje, advocate for the Respondent.

¶10

 CORAM : S.V.GANGAPURWALA,J.

¶11

 Date : 20.12.2011.

¶12

PER COURT :

¶13

Heard.

¶14

The present Respondent had filed a complaint before the Industrial Court seeking permanency from the year 2005. The said complaint is allowed. Aggrieved thereby, the present petition is filed.

¶15

Mr.Kale, learned counsel for the petitioner submits that the Respondent was appointed on a consolidated salary and as such would not be entitled for the permanency. The Respondent is granted benefits of permanency since 2009. The Industrial Court has wrongly applied the yardstick of other employees who were appointed on regular salary. The learned counsel further contends that at the relevant time there was ban on new recruitment. In view

¶16

¶17

W.P.No.8218/11

¶18

of that also it can not be said that the appointment of the Respondent was legal. According to the learned counsel, the Industrial Court has committed an error in passing the impugned order.

¶19

The learned counsel for the Respondent supports the order.

¶20

With the assistance of the learned counsels, I have gone through the documents filed and the order passed. The appointment order issued to the Respondent dated 22.3.2002, itself shows that the Respondent was appointed as a Probationer for a period of one year. The Respondent continued in service. The other employees who were appointed at the relevant time are given benefits of permanency since 2005. The Respondent is only discriminated. The Industrial Court has rightly observed that the petitioner has indulged in unfair labour practice. The order passed by the Industrial Court does not suffer from any error of fact or in law.

¶21

In light of the above, the Writ Petition is dismissed. However, there shall be no order as to costs.

¶22

(S.V.GANGAPURWALA,J.)

¶23

Dt.20.12.2011. asp/office/wp8218.11

¶24

¶25

W.P.No.8218/11

Nanded Zilha Dekhrekh Sahakari Sanstha Maryadit Nanded Thr Chief Executive Officer v. Uttam Sampatrao Jondhale

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Nanded Zilha Dekhrekh Sahakari Sanstha Maryadit Nanded Thr Chief Executive Officer v. Uttam Sampatrao Jondhale

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

What the court decided

A compact analysis

Issues for consideration

Parties & counsel

Coram

Case details

Similar cases

Shahanoorbi Mohd Shah Vs the State of Mah and Ors.

Sarvodaya Shikshan Prasarak Coop Society Ltd. Umberkhede Dist Jalgaon through Chairman Vs the State of Mahrashtra and Ors.

Anand Asaram Tokshiya and Anr. Vs the Assistant Registrar, Co-Op Soc and Ors.

Sahebkha Bhikankha Tadvi Vs Sau Shakuntalabai and Ors.

Balasaheb Raosaheb Bidve Vs the State of Mah and Ors.

Vasudeo Hari Kolte Vs the Education Officer (Secondary) Zp Jalgaon and Ors.