The High Court rejected a writ petition challenging the retrospective date of permanency granted to a permanent employee under an Industrial Court order. The Court held that the petition suffered from gross delay and laches as the petitioner accepted the benefits and remained silent for over two years.
This page shows the compact analysis of this judgement. The full analysis — procedural history, issue-by-issue holdings with ratio and obiter, advocates, and paragraph-level evidence for every claim — is being added to the record in batches and will appear here when this judgement has been through it.
kishor 1/3 40 wp 15067 of 22.doc
IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY CIVIL APPELLATE JURISDICTION
WRIT PETITION NO.15067 OF 2022
Amra Narayan Patil … Petitioner Versus Zilla Parishad kolhapur through Its Chief Executive Officer … Respondent
Mr. N. V. Bandiwadekar, a/w. Mr. R. B. Khaire, Mr. A. S. Phapale i/b. Mr. Ashwini Bandiwadekar for Petitioner. Mr. Kedar P. Lad, for Respondent.
CORAM: SANDEEP V. MARNE, J. DATE : 01 NOVEMBER 2023.
P. C.:
By this petition Petitioner challenges order dated 06 June 2015 passed by the Member, Industrial Court, Maharashtra at Kolhapur in Complaint (ULP) No.168 of 2011. By Order dated 06 June 2015, the Industrial Court has partly allowed the Complaint and has directed grant of permanency to the Petitioner with effect from 26 November 2010. Petitioner is aggrieved by the date from which benefit of permanency is granted to him. According to him permanency ought to have been granted since 08 August 1999. However Petitioner did not challenge the Judgment and Order dated 06 June 2015 passed by the Industrial Court. On the contrary, the same was challenged by the Zilla Parishad before this Court by filing Writ Petition No.11303 of 2016 which came to be
kishor 2/3 40 wp 15067 of 22.doc
rejected on 07 November 2017. The matter was carried further before the Apex Court by the Zilla Parishad by filing SLP (C). No.15901 of 2017 which came to be rejected on 11 August 2017. After rejection of the SLP Filed by the Zilla Parishad, Order of the Industrial Court came to be implimented by issuing Order dated 22 November 2017. That Order regularized the Petitioner in service with effect from 26 November 2010. The Order contains an affidavit to be signed by the employee not to demand any further benefit in future in respect of services with Zilla Parishad. After passing of Order dated 22 November 2017 Petitioner did not take any action and accepted the benefit of permanency with effect from 26 November 2010. Two years later, he made representation on 01 August 2019 praying for counting of his service from 08 August 1999 for permanency. This is the first time when Petitioner raised grievance about date of grant of benefit of permanency. Thereafter few more representations were apparently addressed by the Petitioner claiming benefit of permanency from 08 August 1999. The request was rejected by the Zilla Parishad by communication dated 27 January 2021. Present petition is thereafter filed on 03 March 2021.
kishor 3/3 40 wp 15067 of 22.doc
pursing remedies in respect of Order dated 06 June 2015 before this Court and before the Apex Court. Even after passing of Order dated 22 November 2017 by Zilla Parishad granting benefit of permanency with effect from 26 November 2010, Petitioner maintained silence for over two years. The present petition clearly suffers from delay and latches. For that reason this Court would loathe in exercising jurisdiction under Article 227 of the Constitution of India. Writ Petition is accordingly rejected.
SANDEEP V. MARNE, J.12
Digitally signed by KISHOR KISHOR VISHNU VISHNU KAMBLEDate: KAMBLE 2023.11.03 18:32:10 +0530
2 issues framed by the court
Whether this Court should exercise jurisdiction under Article 227 of the Constitution of India despite gross delay and laches in filing the writ petition.
Whether the petitioner is barred from challenging the date of grant of permanency due to inordinate delay and acceptance of benefits.
Amra Narayan Patil
Zilla Parishad Kolhapur
SANDEEP V. MARNE
As recorded by the court registry
Judgements on the same questions, provisions and authorities, from every court
