PYARELAL Vs. MUNICIPAL COUNCIL

JUDGEMENT

(1.) THE petitioner joined the services of the respondent No. I Municipal Council, Ramtek as Safai mazdoor (Sweeper) some time in the year 1969. By the end of 1984 the post of Safai Jamadar fell vacant and the petitioner was appointed in that post vide order dated 13. 12. 1984 (Annexure-A) for a period of three months on an experimental basis. It was clarified that if his services were found satisfactory, he would be deemed to be fit for the post of Safai Jamadar and he would be paid the salary of Safai Jamadar. In fact, there were no complaints against his work till he was reverted as Safai Mazdoor vide order, dated 30. 7. 1985, which was received by the petitioner on 31. 7. 1985. The respondent No. 2 was appointed as Safai Jamadar in place of the petitioner.

(2.) THE petitioner challenged the order of his reversion by filing a complaint under Sections 5, 28, 30 read with Sections 26, 27 and under Items 5, 7 and 9 of Schedule IV of the Maharashtra recognition of Trade Unions and Prevention of Unfair Labour Practices Act, 1971 (hereinafter referred to as 'the Unfair Labour Practices Act' ). It was stated in the complaint that the petitioner had completed about 8 months' service as Safai Jamadar continuously without any complaint against his work and hence he should have been confirmed as Safai Jamadar in view of the model Standing Orders. According to the petitioner, there were about 150 workers with the respondent No. 1 Municipal Council and, therefore, the Model Standing Orders were applicable to them. The petitioner also applied under Section 30 (2) of the Unfair Labour Practices Act along with the complaint. The Industrial Court allowed the application and directed the respondent No. 1 Municipal Council to withdraw the unfair labour practice complaint temporarily and further directed not to revert the petitioner from the post of Safai Jamadar during the pendency of the proceedings. This order was confirmed after hearing the respondent No. 1 and remained in force till the complaint was finally dismissed by the Industrial Court vide order dated 12. 11. 1990.

(3.) THE respondent No. 1 contested the complaint essentially on the ground that the petitioner was appointed purely on temporary and experimental basis till the final arrangement was made in his place. It was further contended by the respondent No. 1 that the period of probation was of two years under the Municipal Laws and since the petitioner was reverted within a period of two years he had no right to claim the permanent status. The petitioner examined himself to substantiate his contention, whereas the Chief Officer was examined on behalf of the respondent no. 1. The Industrial Court dismissed the complaint vide order, dated 12. 11. 1990, essentially on the ground that the petitioner was appointed on experimental basis and he was not found suitable for being continued as Safai Jamadar.