Ranjeet Vithalrao Salve and Ors v. The State of Mah and Anr

J U D G M E N T :-

¶01Present petitioners have approached this Court challenging judgment and order dated 01.04.2005 passed by the learned Industrial Court, Jalna in Complaint ULP Nos. 27/2001, 31/2001, 43/2001, 44/2001, 47/2001, 158/2001, 174/2001, 46/2002, 65/2003, 66/2003, 68/2003, 72/2003, 77/2003, 87/2003, 187/2003, 146/2003 and 156/2003. By way of the judgment, the learned Industrial Court refused to allow the complaints, by the present petitioners. The petitioners had prayed to declare that the respondent has indulged into unfair labour practices under Item Nos. 6,9 and 5 of Schedule IV of the Maharashtra Recognition of Trade Unions and Prevention of Unfair Labour Practices Act, 1971. [for short "MRTU and PULP Act, 1971"].

¶02In short, it is case of the petitioners that the petitioners were appointed in the year 1992 till 1995 on the post of Clerk. The respondent-bank passed two resolutions dated 17.04.1995 and ( 29 )

31.07.1995. At the relevant time, the respondent-bank was in weak financial position and was facing financial crisis. To recover the amount, the respondent-bank had engaged employees i.e. these petitioners. However, the petitioners were not made permanent. The petitioners, therefore, filed ULP complaints. Initially, the Industrial Court granted order of status-quo. However, subsequently, the ULP complaints came to be dismissed by the judgment and order dated 01.04.2005. The respondent-bank, therefore, issued notice on 19.04.2005 and terminated services of the petitioners. The petitioners approached this Court challenging the said order. The petition came to be admitted by this Court by order dated 21.11.2005. Since the petitioners are facing difficulties, as they are out of service since 2005, this petition is moved for final hearing. Looking to the urgency, this Court decided to take up the matter for final hearing by consent of the parties, though the same is appeared in the order matters category.

¶03At the outset, learned Advocate Mr. Bachate for the petitioners made submission that the respondent-bank has already filed affidavit in this writ petition, wherein it is stated that the bank is ready to consider the case of the petitioners sympathetically as per section 25-H of the Industrial Disputes Act and thus the petitioners would be ( 30 )

considered for giving employment in the bank, in-case there are vacancies available. In the affidavit, it is pointed out that the respondent-bank itself has stated that the bank has retrenched the daily wages workers by preparing their seniority list and removed them. As and when the bank required services of the daily wages workers on temporary or permanent basis, the bank will consider claim of the daily wages workers as per seniority. Learned Advocate Mr. Bachate, therefore, submits that this petition can be disposed off in view of the said statement appearing in the affidavit-in-reply by the respondent-bank.

¶04Learned Advocate Mr. Suryawanshi appearing for the respondent-bank raises preliminary objection that total 17 complaints were filed before the Industrial Court. The judgment was common, still the petitioners were required to file 17 writ petitions in this Court. The second objection he raised is about maintainability of the petition. He submits that it is the case of the petitioners themselves that they are terminated. Therefore, their remedy lies in approaching the Labour Court challenging the order of termination. When the remedy is available, the petitioners need not approach this Court. He vehemently submits that though submission is made in respect of retrenchment, ( 31 )

however, the complaints filed were for permanency benefits and for declaration that the respondent-bank indulged in to unfair labour practices under item Nos. 6, 9 and 5 of the Schedule IV of the MRTU & PULP Act, by inviting attention to the prayers in the complaint. He submits that the Industrial Court has rightly considered the merits of the matter and has specifically come to a conclusion that no case is made out by the petitioners to allow the complaints. The Industrial Court has categorically recorded finding that the appointments of the petitioners were not made on sanctioned permanent post and the issue is rightly answered in negative. Even the point of legality and validity of the appointments is answered in negative. In such case, this petition need not be entertained. He further submits that some of the employees even approached the Labour Court challenging the order of termination. He, thus, prays for dismissal of the writ petition.

¶05Learned Advocate for the petitioners Mr. Bachate relies upon following judgments :-

i) Municipal Council, Pulgaon Vs. Sau. Manu w/o. Sudesh Malik and Anr., 2007(4) Mh.L.J.446.

ii) Kiran Shankar Rawool & Ors. Vs. Eastern International Hotel & Ors., 2019 (2) Bom.C.R.489.

iii) Management of the Barara Cooperative Marketing-cum-Processing Society Limited Vs. Workman Partap Singh, 2019 AIR (SC) 228.

iv) Yadav Yogaji Ingle Vs. The Nanded District Central Co- ( 32 )

operative Bank Ltd., Nanded [WP No.1748 of 2021 – dated

11.07.2023] . Above judgments are mainly relied upon by the petitioners to submit that the respondent-bank needs to consider the cases of these petitioners under section 25-H of the Industrial Disputes Act.

¶06In the case of Municipal Council, Pulgaon [supra], this Court has held that the cause of action does not come to an end by termination of services. The Court has to consider the position as on the date of filing of the complaint under section 28 of the MRTU & PULP Act. . In the case of Kiran Shankar Rawool [supra], this Court held that even if the employees are not remaining unemployed for long period and even if they have engaged themselves in some other employment, still their names need to be considered, while considering section 25-H of the Industrial Disputes Act. . In the case of Management of the Barara [supra], the Hon'ble Supreme Court considered the provisions of section 25-H of the Industrial Disputes Act. It is held that said section requires to be implemented as per the procedure prescribed in the Rule 78 of the ( 33 )

Industrial Disputes (Central) Rules, 1957. Section 25-H is held to be applicable only when the employer decides to fill up vacancies in their set up. It is further held that the section provides for issuance of notice to retrenched employee prescribed therein in that behalf. . In Yadav Yogaji Ingle [supra], this Court has directed the very bank i.e. the respondent in the present petition to consider the claim of the petitioners therein in terms of Section 25-H of the Industrial Disputes Act, if the petitioners are otherwise eligible and qualified.

¶07So far as judgments in the cases above are concerned, there cannot be any dispute with the proposition. The only question is whether the said judgments are applicable to the present case. In this case it is clearly seen that the ULP complaints were filed for breach of item Nos. 6,9 and 5 of Schedule IV of the MRTU & PULP Act, whereas these judgments deal with the provisions of section 25-H of the Industrial Disputes Act. So far as Writ Petition No.1478 of 2021 is concerned, the facts are identical and the respondent is the same. This Court has clearly held that the petitioners had approached after considerable delay and the petitions were dismissed on the ground of delay and laches. It is only observed that the respondent-bank, if processes to fill in any post, in ( 34 )

that case the bank may consider the claim of the petitioners therein in terms of section 25-H of the Industrial Disputes Act. This Court in the said judgment had shown some indulgence looking to the submissions of the parties.

¶08In the present case, this Court finds that the petitioners have approached this Court challenging the judgment passed by the Industrial Court. No any perversity or illegality is pointed out in the impugned judgment. This Court is, thus, not inclined to interfere with the said judgment. No case is made out calling for interference. So far as section 25-H is concerned, this Court finds that no specific direction is necessary. It is always open for the respondent-bank to consider the provisions of the Act.

¶09With the above discussions, the Writ Petition stands dismissed with no order as to costs. Rule discharged.

¶10In view of dismissal of the Writ Petition, connected Civil Application does not survive and is disposed off accordingly. [KISHORE C. SANT, J.] snk/2025/mar25/wp4436.05

( 1 ) IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY BENCH AT AURANGABAD WRIT PETITION NO. 4436 PF 2005 WITH CIVIL APPLICATION NO. 9136 OF 2024 1. Ranjeet Vithalrao Savle .. Petitioners Age. 30 years, Occ. Service, R/o. Mukaramabad, Tq. Mukhed, District – Nanded. 2. Dnyaneshwar Janardhan Gadewar Age. 29 years, Occ. Service, R/o. Naigaon, Tq. Naigaon, Dist. Nanded. 3. Madhukar Madhavrao Bongade, Age. 32 years, Occ. Service. R/o. Atkali, Tq. Biloli, District Nanded. 4. Devidas Gangadhar Yalmod Age. 31 years, Occ. Service, R/o. Nanded. 5. Mahajan Vithal Dhekle age 27 years, occ. service, r/o Shankar Nagar, Tq. Biloli, District Nanded. 6. Gangadhar Vitthalrao Honshetee age 32 years, occ. service r/o Shankar Nagar, Tq. Biloli, District Nanded. 7. Sanjay Laxman Sangnale age 30 years, occ. service r/o Betmogra, Tq. Mukhed, District Nanded. 2025:BHC-AUG:11425 ( 2 ) 8. Linguram Rajanna Ramlingu, age 29 years, occ. service, r/o Sagroli, Tq. Biloli, District Nanded. 9. Rajeshwar Madhavrao Badnale age 27 years, occ. service r/o Sawargaon (P) Tq. Mukhed District Nanded. 10. Ayubkhan Hussainkhan Pathan age 29 years, occ. service r/o Nanded. 11. Shankar Sopan Sambalwar age 31 years, occ.service, r/o Nanded. 12. Suryakant Balaji Wadgave age 30 years, occ.service r/o Mukhed, Dist. Nanded. 13. Santosh Bhimrao Gaikwad age 28 years, occ. service r/o Mukhed, District Nanded. 14. Gangadhar Shankarrao Bhilwande age 28 years, occ.service r/o Takli, Tq. Biloli, Dist.Nanded 15. Bhimrao Maroti Sambalwad age 32 years, occ.service, r/o Takli, Tq. Biloli, Dist. Nanded 16. Satish Sureshrao Solanke age 31 years, occ.service r/o Nanded. 17. Shivram Balaji Patils age 30 years, occ.service r/o Krishnur, Tq. Biloli, District Nanded. ( 3 ) 18. Shivanand Shankarrrao Chande age 32 years, occ. service r/o Kahala, Tq.Biloli, District Nanded. 19. Hanumant Vishwambhar Fazge age 35 years, occ. service r/o Malapuri, Tq. Loha District Nanded. (Some of the Complainants in Complaint (ULP) No.27 of 2001). 20. Devidas Dhawji Chavan age 37 years, occ.service r/o Shankarnagar, Tq. Biloli, District Nanded. 21. Prakash Trimbak Patil age 31 years, occ.service r/o Takli, Tq. Biloli, District Nanded. 22. Dilip Udhavrao Jilhawar age 31 years, occ. service r/o Ratoli, Tq. Naigaon, District Nanded. 23. Bhaskar Dhondiba Pawar age 37 years, occ.service r/o Loha, Dist. Nanded. 24. Ramrao Bhagwanrao Kadam age 30 years, occ.service r/o Kurla, Dist. Nanded. 25. Madhav Yadeorao Chiwde age 25 years, occ.service r/o Kurla, Dist. Nanded. 26. Rajkumar Baburao Palekar age 27 years, occ.service r/o Mugaon, Dist. Nanded. 27. Ajay Sureshrao Solanke ( 4 ) age 37 years, occ.service r/o Malegaon, Dist. Nanded. 28. Pandit Vithalrao Chavan age 31 years, occ.service R/o Koli, District Nanded. 29. Rama Datttarao Solanke age 30 years, occ.service r/o Hadgaon, Dist. Nanded. 30. Pandurang Bhaurao Bagal age 31 years, occ.service r/o Manatha, Dist. Nanded. 31. Dattatray Balwant Mhaske age 33 years, occ.service r/o Palsa, Dist. Nanded. 32. Sanjay Nagorao Kadam age 37 years, occ.service r/o Tamsa, Dist. Nanded. 33. Sanjay Dattarao Falke age 29 years, occ.service r/o Tamsa, Dist. Nanded. 34. Harihar Shivajirao Mundhe age 32 years, occ. service r/o Limgaon, Nanded. 35. Balaji Vithalrao Holkar age 33 years, occ.service r/o Limgaon, Nanded. 36. Shahuraj Madhavrao Dhage age 31 years, occ.service r/o Kivla, Dist. Nanded. 37. Keshav Balaji Dhale age 35 years, occ.service ( 5 ) r/o Kapsi Bk. Dist. Nanded. 38. Balaji Gangadhar Pawar age 30 years, occ. service r/o Nivgha, Dist. Nanded. 39. Kawalgaonkar Maroti Sayanna age 31 years, occ.service r/o Karadkhed, Dist. Nanded. 40. Balaji Baliram Shinde age 30 years, occ.service r/o Wajegaon, Dist. Nanded. 41. Shahaji Dadarao Sawle age 29 years, occ. service r/o Martala, Dist. Nanded. 42. Ramesh Deuji Patil age 27 years, occ.service r/o Martala, Dist. Nanded. 43. Sambhaji Mashnaji Patil age 28 years, occ.service r/o Eklara, Dist. Nanded. 44. Milind Khandupant Rekhawar, age 31 years, oc