DILIP SHANKAR DEO Vs. CHIEF OFFICER DHULE NAGARPALIKA

JUDGEMENT

(1.) This writ petition is directed against the judgment and order dated 05.02.1992 passed by the Member, Industrial Court, Nashik in Complaint (ULP) No. 630/1989.

(2.) It is the case of the petitioner that, he was in employment of the respondent from May 1983 as a Bigari on daily wages. The petitioner was appointed as bigari, but he was asked to work as a peon for some time and thereafter, he was asked to work as a clerk and he continued to work as a clerk. He was working as octroi clerk in the octroi department of the respondent. The respondent is the Municipal Council, Dhule. It is the case of the petitioner that he is commerce graduate from Pune University. He has passed his B. Com in June 1987 in second class. The petitioner joined on daily wages and worked as Bigari in the beginning and thereafter as peon and at the time of termination of services he was working as a clerk in the Building Department. The petitioner also worked as a clerk in the Octroi Department. The petitioner was in continuous employment and had completed more than 240 days after 1985. A table showing the number of days for which the petitioner had worked from 1983 onwards in every month is shown in the table at Exhibit A. It is further case of the petitioner that though the Industrial Court has accepted the claim of the petitioner for permanency, but not for the post of clerk, but on the post of peon. According to the learned counsel for the petitioner, the petitioner claimed permanency on the post of clerk, as he has worked as clerk, but his services were terminated. Therefore, according to the counsel for the petitioner, since the petitioner is fully qualified graduate, his services should have been made permanent on the post of clerk. However, Industrial Court without any basis held that the petitioner is entitled for permanence on the post of peon. According to the learned counsel for the petitioner, it was not the case of the petitioner or he did not claimed the permanency for the post of peon. There is no basis in the judgment and order impugned in this petition for holding that the petitioner is entitled for permanency to the post of peon. According to the learned counsel for the petitioner, when Exhibit A to the petition i. e. the chart prepared by the Municipal Council, Dhule itself shows that the petitioner herein Mr. Dilip Shankar Deo was working as clerk, therefore, the counsel for the petitioner submitted that, since that material was brought on record showing that the petitioner through out has worked as clerk, there was no reason for the Industrial Court to held that the petitioner is entitled for benefits of permanency to the post of peon.

(3.) On the other hand, the learned counsel for the respondent submits that, in absence of any pleadings or sufficient material brought on record for claiming the permanency for the post of clerk, the Industrial Court was not left with any option but to held that the petitioner has failed to bring on record or has not pleaded in the complaint that he is claiming benefit of permanency to a particular post. Therefore, the counsel for the respondent would submit that, being a writ petition under Article 227, this Court may not interfere in the impugned judgment and order.