Bombay High CourtWP/221/2002disposed offdismissed for default

Chief Executive Officer Zp Aurangabad v. Bhaginath Jivnaji Gawli And ANR

2017-05-11Hon'Ble Shri Justice Ravindra V. Ghuge3 pages

*1*

IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY

BENCH AT AURANGABAD WRIT PETITION NO. 3545 OF 2000 WITH CIVIL APPLICATION NO.4475 OF 2003 IN WP/3545/2000 EXECUTIVE ENGINEER(WORKS), ZILLA PARISHAD, AURANGABAD AND ANOTHER.

VERSUS

MASUDKHAN IBRAHIMKHAN AND OTHERS WITH WRIT PETITION NO.221 OF 2002 THE CHIEF EXECUTIVE OFFICER, ZILLA PARISHAD, AURANGABAD. -VERSUSBHAGINATH JIVNAJI GAWLI AND ANOTHER.

...

Advocate for Petitioner in WP No.221/2002 : Shri D R Kale Patil. AGP for Respondent/ State : Shri N.T.Bhagat.

Advocate for Respondents/ Workers : Shri A.S.Shelke. ...

CORAM: RAVINDRA V. GHUGE, J.

DATE :- 11th May, 2017 Per Court :

Shri D.R.Kale Patil, learned counsel appearing on behalf of the same Petitioner/ Establishment in the second Writ Petition No.221/2002, submits that the cases of the Respondents in the first petition as well as in the second petition were considered by the Petitioner/ Zilla Parishad. As interim relief was refused to the Petitioner/

*2* Zilla Parishad in both these petitions, the Petitioner/ Zilla Parishad has reinstated these Respondents. After completion of five years in employment, they have been taken on Converted Regular Temporary Establishment (CRTE). They have continued in employment and have subsequently superannuated from service.

The order passed by the Petitioner/ Zilla Parishad dated 10.10.2016 with regard to these Respondents is placed on record. It indicates that even the back wages as mentioned in clause (4) were granted by the Zilla Parishad.

The said order dated 10.10.2016 is taken on record and marked as Exhibit X for identification.

The learned counsel for the Respondents/ workmen in both these matters submits that they have accepted all the terms and conditions set out in the order Exhibit X and therefore, the impugned awards dated 29.04.2000 in Reference (IDA) No.68/1990 and 17.06.2000 in Reference (IDA) No.160/1992 stand satisfied and the Respondents/workmen have no grievance against the Petitioner/ Zilla Parishad. Considering the above statement and Exhibit X and since

*3* entire grievance and dispute in between the parties stands redressed, both these Writ Petitions are disposed of. Rule is discharged. Pending Civil Application, if any, stands disposed of. kps (RAVINDRA V. GHUGE, J.)