Nagar Parishad, Yavatmal Thr. Chairman And Another v. Sant Gadgebaba Nagar Parishad Asthai Kamgar Vikas Sanghatana, Thr. Chairman Shri.Vinod Shende And O
IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY
NAGPUR BENCH, NAGPUR.
WRIT PETITION NO.2915/2017 1.
Nagar Parishad, Yavatmal, Through its Chairman, Nagar Parishad Karyalaya, Nagar Palika Prashaskiya Imarat, Pachkandil Chouk, Yeotmal. Tahsil and Dist. Yavatmal-445 001.
2.
Nagar Parishad Karyalaya, Yeotmal, Through Chief Officer, Nagar Parishad, yeotmal, Office-Nagar Parishad Karyalaya, Nagar Palika Prashaskiya Imarat, Pachkandil Chouk, Yeotmal. Tahsil and Dist. Yavatmal-445 001.
......PETITIONERS --Versus --- 1.
Sant Gadge Baba Nagar Parishad Asthai Kamgar Vikas Sanghatana, District Yeotmal, Registration No.4897, Through its Chairman Shri Vinod Shende, Address : Samyak Kranti Chouk, Patipura, Yeotmal-445 001.
Secretary - Shri Kishor Meshram, Address : Ambedkar Nagar Patipura, Yavatmal.
2.
Baba Taj Rojgar Va Swayamrojgar Bandhkam Sahakari Sahakari Sanstha Maryadit Digras, Registration No.703, through Chairman - Shri Firozkhan Noorkhan, Address :- Sambhaji Nagar, Digras, Tahsil Digras, District Yavatmal.
3.
Gadge Maharaj Swacchata Va Swayamrojgar Seva Sahakari Sanstha Maryadit, Yavatmal, Registration No.316, through Chairman - Shri Amit Raja Chavhan, Address :- Sevanagar, Nagpur Road, Yavatmal, Tahsil and District Yavatmal.
4.
Nagar Parishad Prashasan Sanchalanalaya Mumbai, through Ayukta Tatha Sanchalak, Address : Shaskiya Parivahan Seva Imarat, Tisra Majla, Sir Pochkhanvala Marg, Varali, Mumbai-400 030.
5.
Sachiv, Maharashtra Shasan, Nagar Vikas Vibhag, Address : Hutatma Rajguru Chouk, Madam Kama Road, Mantralaya, Mumbai-400 032 ...... RESPONDENTS --------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------- Shri D.M.Kale, Advocate for petitioners.
Shri A.C.Dharmadhikari, Advocate for respondent no.1. Mrs. Mrunal Naik, Assistant Government Pleader, for respondent nos. 2 and 3. -------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------- CORAM : A.S.CHANDURKAR,J.
DATED :
22.03.2019 ORAL JUDGMENT 1.
Rule. Heard finally with the consent of learned counsel appearing for the parties.
2.
The order passed under Section 30(2) of the Maharashtra Recognition of Trade Unions and Prevention of Unfair Labour Practices Act, 1971 ( for short, the 'said Act') passed by the Industrial Court on 12.04.2017 directing the petitioners to maintain status-quo in respect of employment of the members of the respondent no.1-Union during the pendency of the complaint is under challenge.
3.
The respondent no.1 - Union has filed complaint under Section 28 of the said Act with a prayer that the services of its members as shown in the list annexed to the complaint be regularized along with other ancillary reliefs. In that complaint the Industrial Court after considering the nature of work being done by the members of the Union over a long period of time directed the petitioners herein to maintain status quo as regards their employment and expedited adjudication of the complaint.
4.
After hearing learned counsel for the parties, it is seen that the impugned order dated 12.04.2017 continues to operate even today. At this stage, adjudication of the respective challenges is not warranted in view of the fact that the complaint is pending before the Industrial Court. The interests of justice would be served by directing the Industrial Court to decide the said complaint as expeditiously as possible. Accordingly the following order is passed : (i) Proceedings in Complaint (ULP) No.17/2017 are expedited and the Industrial Court shall decide the said complaint by the end of December, 2019 on its own merits.
(ii) The interim order dated 12.04.2017 shall continue to operate during the pendency of the complaint. It however clarified that the Industrial Court shall not be influenced by grant of that interim order and its continuation by this Court. The parties shall not claim any equity in
that regard.
5.
With these directions, the writ petition is disposed of. Rule is made absolute in the aforesaid terms. No costs.
JUDGE Andurkar..