DHULE MUNICIPAL COUNCIL Vs. GANESH (KISHOR) MADHUKAR PATIL

JUDGEMENT

(1.) The petitioner is a Municipal Council established and functioning under the Maharashtra Municipal Councils, Nagar Panchayats Act and Industrial Township Act, 1965 (hereinafter 'the Act '). Invoking Article 226 and 227 of the Constitution of India it is taking exception to the judgment and order dtd. 07/10/1996 passed by the learned Member of the Industrial Court Nasik in the complaints under Sec. 28 read with Item 5, 6, 9 and 10 of the Schedule IV of The Maharashtra Recognition of Trade Unions and Prevention of Unfair Labour Practices Act, 1971 (hereinafter 'the ULP Act ') filed by the respondents, the operative part of which reads as under :

(2.) Though the Writ Petition is old one it raises the questions which are usually raised in these matters, in view of the directions of the Industrial Courts (supra). As usual learned advocate Mr. Shah for the petitioner would raise a submission that the petitioner is a Municipal Council. The respondents were appointed under some oral orders issued by the then President. These appointments were on daily wages. The posts on which they were appointed were non-existent. Those were neither sanctioned nor were there vacancies. The President had no power to make such appointments. Those were not advertised and no recruitment process was ever undertaken. The respondents, still, approached the Industrial Court by filing the complaint under ULP Act. He would further submit that the directions given by the Industrial Court are clearly beyond its competence and jurisdiction. In the absence of the posts no such directions could have been issued. Those are clearly in violation of the observations of the Supreme Court in the case of Delhi Development Horticulture Employees ' Union, Vs. Delhi Administration, Delhi and others; AIR 1992 Supreme Court, 789 and Secretary, State of Karnataka and Ors. Vs. Umadevi and Ors; A.I.R. 2006 Supreme Court, 1806. Since there were no sanctioned posts, there was no question of petitioner Council engaging in any unfair labour practice within the meaning of Item 6 of Schedule IV of the ULP Act.

(3.) By referring to the decision of a division bench of this Court in the matter of The Municipal Council, Tirora and Anr. Vs. Tulsidas Baliram Bindhade; 2016 (6) Mh.L.J. 867, Mr. Shah would submit that after going through catena of judgments of the Supreme Court as also this Court, on a reference the division bench has clearly laid down that in the absence of vacant sanctioned posts with Municipal Council a workman who has put in continuous of 240 days cannot invoke Clause 4-C of Model Standing Orders (MSO) to claim permanency or regularisation. He would, therefore, submit that the order under challenge is clearly contrary to the law and may be quashed and set aside.