Dismissed¶14

Muncipal Council, Kanhan-Pipri, Nagpur Thr. Its Chief Officer v. Varsha Wd/O Ravindra Urkude

Bombay HC22 Sept 2025WP/2069/2023

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

MRTU and PULP Act Item I Schedule IV unfair labour practice; Section 44 revision before Industrial Court No.3 Nagpur; Complaint (ULP) No.98/2016 Labour Court No.3 Nagpur; reinstatement with continuity; full back wages; oral termination w.e.f. 01/06/2015; absorption list of 61 employees on upgrade of Kanhan-Pipri Gram Panchayat to Municipal Council (notification 17/01/2014); Assistant Clerk appointed 07/03/2012; ex parte proceedings before Labour Court; writ petition dismissed; 2025:BHC-NAG:9611.

What did the court decide?

No case for interference is made out with respect to the relief of reinstatement in service with continuity granted to the respondent. ¶11

Muncipal Council, Kanhan-Pipri, Nagpur Thr. Its Chief Officer Vs Varsha Wd/O Ravindra Urkude — Bombay HC (2025) — LawSathi Research

What the court decided

AI extract

Outcome

Dismissed

¶14

Issue for consideration

Whether the respondent's services were terminated by the petitioner-Municipal Council, or whether she merely ceased to be employed because her name did not find place in the list of 61 employees forwarded for absorption when the Gram Panchayat was accorded the status of Municipal Council. +2 more

¶5

Ratio / Principle

No case for interference is made out with respect to the relief of reinstatement in service with continuity granted to the respondent.

¶11

Key takeaways

The order of back wages does not call for interference, as there is no denial in the writ petition or the memo of revision to the respondent's affidavit stating she was not in gainful employment till the date of termination of services.ratio¶13

Detailed headnote1 paragraphs

Writ Petition No.2069/2023, High Court of Judicature at Bombay, Nagpur Bench (Rohit W. Joshi, J.; decided 22/09/2025; 2025:BHC-NAG:9611) — dismissed, no costs. The Municipal Council, Kanhan-Pipri challenged the order dated 12/04/2022 of the Member, Industrial Court No.3, Nagpur dismissing its revision under Section 44 of the MRTU and PULP Act against the Labour Court No.3, Nagpur's judgment dated 02/01/1919 (as printed) in Complaint (ULP) No.98/2016, which found an unfair labour practice under Item I, Schedule IV and directed reinstatement of the respondent with continuity and full back wages. The respondent, appointed Assistant Clerk on 07/03/2012 with the erstwhile Kanhan-Pipri Gram Panchayat (accorded Municipal Council status vide notification dated 17/01/2014), was discontinued from 01/06/2015, her name not appearing in the list of 61 employees forwarded for absorption. Held: no case for interference with reinstatement-with-continuity; the back-wages order also stands, the respondent's affidavit of no gainful employment having gone undenied in the petition and memo of revision. The Labour Court stage proceeded ex parte / uncontested on merits; the Council produced justificatory documents in revision.

¶1

WP 2069 of 2023.odt

¶2

¶3

2025:BHC-NAG:9611

¶4

IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY NAGPUR BENCH AT NAGPUR

¶5

WRIT PETITION NO.2069/2023 Municipal Council, Kanhan-Pipri through its Chief Officer, Kanhan-Pipri, Tahsil – Parseoni, District Nagpur

¶6

...Versus…

¶7

Smt. Varsha wd/o Ravindra Urkude

¶8

¶9

Office Notes, Office Memoranda of Coram, Court's or Judge's orders appearances, Court's orders or directions and Registrar's orders

¶10

¶11

Mr. D.M. Kale, Advocate for appellant Mr. R.M. Bhongade, Advocate for respondent

¶12

CORAM : ROHIT W. JOSHI, J. DATE : 22/09/2025

¶13

The respondent was appointed on the post of Assistant Clerk with erstwhile Kanhan-Pipri Gram Panchayat which was accorded a status of Municipal Council vide notification dated 17/01/2014. The respondent was appointed on the aforesaid post in the Gram Panchayat on 07/03/2012. Her services were orally terminated w.e.f. 01/06/2015 by the petitioner – Municipal Council.

¶14

The respondent therefore filed Complaint (ULP) No.98/2016 challenging her termination. The said complaint was allowed by the learned Judge Labour Court No.3, Nagpur vide judgment and order dated 02/01/1919. The learned labour Court has held that the petitioner – Municipal Council had engaged in an unfair labour practice under Item I Schedule IV of the Maharashtra Recognition of Trade Unions and Prevention of Unfair Labour Practices Act, 1971 (for short hereinafter referred to as “MRTU and PULP Act”) and accordingly directed to reinstate the respondent in service with continuity and full back wages.

¶15

WP 2069 of 2023.odt 2

¶16

The petitioner filed revision under Section 44 of the MRTU and PULP Act challenging the said judgment. The same came to be dismissed by the learned Member Industrial Court No.3, Nagpur vide judgment and order dated 12/04/2022.

¶17

It will be pertinent to mention that before the learned labour Court the petition was proceeded ex parte, as contended by the learned Advocate for the petitioner and without written statement, as contended by the learned Advocate for the respondent. It is however not in dispute that the matter was not contested on merits of the petitioner – Municipal Council. In the revision filed before the learned Industrial Court, the Municipal Council produced various documents justifying its position.

¶18

The contention of the learned Advocate for the petitioner is that it will not be correct to say that the services of respondent were terminated. He states that while the Gram Panchayat was accorded status of Municipal Council, the list of employees was forwarded by the Gram Panchayat, Parseoni to Administrator of the petitioner - Municipal Council in which names of 61 employees were included for absorption of their services with Municipal Council. It is submitted that since the name of respondent did not find place in the said list, she was not continued in service.

¶19

6.. Learned Advocate for respondent has drawn attention of this Court to the said list to contend that the employees from serial Nos.56 to 61 are junior to the respondent. He draws attention to the employee at Serial No.56 and contends that the said employee is shown to be

¶20

WP 2069 of 2023.odt

¶21

¶22

working on the post of Assistant Clerk, the date of initial appointment being 01/11/2012.

¶23

The learned Advocate has drawn attention to certificates at page No.42 and 43 issued by the petitioner - Municipal Council. Perusal of certificate dated 25/09/2014 will demonstrate that the respondent was working on the post of Assistant Clerk in Tax Department of the Municipal Council from 07/03/2012 to 11/03/2013 on daily wages and thereafter from 12/03/2013 to 16/01/2014 on fixed pay. The certificate records that respondent was in service on 25/09/2014 i.e. date on which certificate was issued. Perusal of certificate dated 26/02/2016 will further demonstrate that the respondent was working on the said post as Assistant Clerk from 17/01/2014. Although the certificate indicates that respondent was in service as on the date of issuance of certificate i.e. 26/02/2016, it is not in dispute that the services of respondent were continued only up to 31/05/2015 and from 01/06/2015 she is not in service.

¶24

There is no statement in the petition that the respondent was in employment after 01/06/2015 onwards. Learned Advocate for the petitioner contends that the person whose name was forwarded by the Block Development Officer has been retained in employment and since the name of the respondent does not find place in the said list, she does not have any right to claim employment. He therefore contends that the petition deserves to be allowed.

¶25

Per contra, learned Advocate for the respondent contends that the respondent has duly proved that she has worked with the petitioner – Municipal Council for a period of

¶26

WP 2069 of 2023.odt

¶27

¶28

more than 240 days in two consecutive calendar years i.e. from 07/01/2012 till 31/05/2015. Learned Advocate further contends that at least one person is retained on the post of Junior Clerk although he is junior to the respondent. He further contends that respondent has requisite qualification for being appointed on the post of Assistant Clerk.

¶29

Learned labour Court has allowed the complaint on the ground that the evidence brought on record is sufficient to prove that respondent was illegally terminated and that the respondent has satisfied that she has worked for more than 240 days in a calendar year. In paragraph no.19, the learned Industrial Court has specifically observed that it was not even the case of petitioner that there was no post available for appointing the respondent or that there was any claim superior to that of the respondent.

¶30

In that view of the matter, no case for interference is made out so far as relief of reinstatement in service with continuity is granted.

¶31

The respondent has also filed affidavit stating that she was not in gainful employment till date of termination of services.

¶32

Perusal of the present petition so also the memo of revision will indicate that there is no denial to the said statement made on affidavit. In view of the above, the order of back wages also does not call interference.

¶33

The writ petition is dismissed. No order as to costs.

¶34

(ROHIT W. JOSHI, J.)

¶35

Wadkar

Muncipal Council, Kanhan-Pipri, Nagpur Thr. Its Chief Officer v. Varsha Wd/O Ravindra Urkude

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Muncipal Council, Kanhan-Pipri, Nagpur Thr. Its Chief Officer v. Varsha Wd/O Ravindra Urkude

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

What the court decided

Issues for consideration

Statutes considered

Procedural history

Parties & counsel

Coram

Case details

Similar cases

Yashodabai Wd/O Ananda Awwalwar and Another Vs Subhash S/O Ananda Awwalwar

Bhaurao Ukardaji Mahulkar Vs the Deputy District Collector and the Sub Divisional Officer, Daryapur, Amravati and Ors.

District Fishery Development Officer Vs Indira Macchimar Va Mastya Utpadak Sahkari Sanstha,Thr.Its President and 3 Ors.

Shri. Sanghratna S/O Suryabhan Waghmare vs Chandrabhan S/O Sitaram Waghmare (Since Deceased) Thr Lrs

Akola City Municipal Corporation, Akola Thr. Its Commissinor Cum Administrator, Akola and Another vs Shoeb Abubakar Sorathia

M/S Sai Auto Agencies Thr. Its Partner Shri Dnyandeo Ramdas Rane Vs Smt. Swati Vijay Deshmukh