Dismissed

Sandip Suresh Patil v. the Municipal Council through Its Chief Officer and Others

Bombay HC14 Dec 2016WP/8363/2015

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

The High Court dismissed the writ petition challenging the Industrial Court's decision to quash an award granting reinstatement. The court held that since statutory remedies under the 1965 Act regarding the suspension of appointment were exhausted, the matter was disposed of without interfering in the impugned judgment.

What did the court decide?

Writ Petition disposed of without causing interference in the impugned judgment of the Industrial Court. Rule discharged.

Sandip Suresh Patil Vs the Municipal Council… — Pension and Retirement Benefits | Bombay HC (2016)

¶1

¶2

916.wp.8363.15

¶3

IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY BENCH AT AURANGABAD

¶4

WRIT PETITION NO. 8363 OF 2015

¶5

Sandip Suresh Patil, Age : 43 years, Occupation : Nil, R/o Sambhaji Nagar, Pachora, Taluka Pachora, District Jalgaon.

¶6

...PETITIONER

¶7

-VERSUS-

¶8

1 The Municipal Council, Pachora, Taluka Pachora, District Jalgaon. Through its Chief Officer.

¶9

2 The Directorate of Municipal Administration, Thane, District Thane.

¶10

3 The State of Maharashtra. Through the Secretary, Urban Development Department, Mantralaya, Mumbai-32.

¶11

...RESPONDENTS

¶12

Advocate for Petitioner : Shri Sant Kishor C. Advocate for Respondent No.1 : Shri Thoke D.B. AGP for Respondents 2 and 3 : Shri N.T.Bhagat.

¶13

CORAM: RAVINDRA V. GHUGE, J.

¶14

DATE :- 14^th December, 2016

¶15

Oral Judgment :

¶16

2 916.wp.8363.15

¶17

1 Rule. Rule made returnable forthwith and heard finally by the

¶18

consent of the parties.

¶19

2 The Petitioner is aggrieved by the judgment and order dated 20.03.2015 delivered by the Industrial Court by which Revision (ULP) No.69/2012 filed by the Petitioner was rejected and Revision (ULP) No.77/2012 filed by the Respondent/ Municipal Council was allowed. Consequentially, the judgment of the Labour Court dated 22.06.2012 allowing the Petitioner's Complaint (ULP) No.102/2001 has been set aside.

¶20

3 I have considered the strenuous submissions of the learned

¶21

Advocates for the respective sides.

¶22

4 There is no dispute that after the name of the Petitioner was called from the Employment Exchange and Social Welfare Officer, the Petitioner was selected on 13.04.1999 for appointment as a Sweeper. After issuance of the appointment order, the District Collector exercised his powers under Section 308(1) of the Maharashtra Municipal Councils, Nagar Panchayats and Industrial Townships Act, 1965 (for short "the 1965 Act") and suspended the resolution appointing the Petitioner.

¶23

3 916.wp.8363.15

¶24

5 After the resolution was suspended, the appeal preferred by the Municipal Council under Section 308(3) of the 1965 Act was considered and the decision of the Collector was sustained by the appropriate authority which is the Director of Municipal Administration and the appeal of the Municipal Council was rejected. It is informed that thereafter, the matter was taken up before the State Government under Section 318 of the 1965 Act and the decision of the Collector has been sustained.

¶25

6 Thereafter, instead of approaching this Court upon being aggrieved by the decision of the State Government, the Petitioner approached the Labour Court by filing the ULP complaint which was allowed on 22.06.2012. He was granted reinstatement with continuity and 50% back wages.

¶26

7 The Industrial Court, while dealing with the group of such revision petitions filed by the Municipal Council as well as by the employees, concluded that after the procedure under Section 308 of the 1965 Act was complied with and after the decision of the Collector was sustained upto the level of the State Government, the Petitioner could not have approached the Labour Court alleging victimization, violation of

¶27

4 916.wp.8363.15

¶28

principles of natural justice and wrongful exercise of the employer's right. The Industrial Court has concluded that the judgment of the Labour Court deserves to be quashed and set aside as the Petitioner should have taken steps in the light of the provisions of the 1965 Act.

¶29

8 The learned Division Bench of this Court in the matter of Municipal Council Tirora vs. Tulsidar Baliram Bindhade , 2016 (6) Mh.L.J. 867, has concluded that unless the prescribed procedure under Section 76 of the 1965 Act is followed, the appointments of candidates cannot be legalized. The learned Division Bench came to the conclusion that the Industrial Court could not have granted regularization in service in the face of non compliance of Section 76 of the 1965 Act.

¶30

9 At this juncture, the learned Advocate for the Petitioner submits that he would prefer to raise a grievance against his termination considering that the State Government has exercised it's powers under Section 318 and has sustained the order of the District Collector.

¶31

10 In the light of the above, this Writ Petition is disposed of without causing interference in the impugned judgment of the Industrial Court. Rule is discharged.

¶32

5 916.wp.8363.15

¶33

11 Insofar as the request of the Petitioner is concerned, this Court need not make any observation regarding granting liberty in a particular way to the Petitioner, considering the fact that in the event he desires to act on the basis of the decision of the State Government under Section 318 of the 1965 Act, it would be for the Petitioner to take a decision subject to the legal remedy that may be available.

¶34

( RAVINDRA V. GHUGE, J. )

¶35

kps

Sandip Suresh Patil v. the Municipal Council through Its Chief Officer and Others

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Sandip Suresh Patil v. the Municipal Council through Its Chief Officer and Others

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

What the court decided

A compact analysis

Issues for consideration

Cases cited

Statutes considered

Parties & counsel

Coram

Case details

Similar cases

Anil Madhavrao Solanke and Ors. Vs the State of Maharashtra and Ors.

Marathwada Krishi Vidyapeeth, Parbhani Vs Mohammad Fayazuddin Wahiduddin

The Municipal Corporation Latur through Its Commissioner Vs Shivaji Dnyanoba Survase and Others

Beed District Central Cooperative Bank Ltd. Thr General Manager Vs Jagannath Sitaram Shahane and Ors.

Sanjay Pralhad Suryawanshi Vs the State of Mah. and Ors.

Vithal Nilkanth Garule Vs Executive Engineer, Kukadi Project Land Development, Ahmednagar