MIRAJ KAMGAR UNION Vs. MIRAJ KAMGAR PARISHAD

JUDGEMENT

(1.) This is a petition filed by Miraj Kamgar Union. The Union represents the workmen of the Miraj Municipal Council (hereinafter referred to as "Municipal Council"). There were disputes between the workmen and the Council in regard to the conditions of service. A settlement was reached earlier on 8-9-1972. Yet another settlement was reached on 2-2-1975 in Pending Case ID No. 1091 of 1971. Dissatisfaction amongst the workmen however, continued. There was a strike notice by the petitioner-Union on 27-10-1976. This was for increase in the posts as also revision in the pay-scales. As a result of the intervention of the Conciliation Officer, there was settlement in regard to even this fresh demand. The Municipal Council passed a resolution being Resolution No. 130 on 6-12-1977. The Council accorded its sanction to the draft settlement authorising the Chief Officer to sign the same. Clause 14 of the said settlement contemplated creation of 58 posts. The same included certain promotional posts. The Council expressly passed a resolution to create about 100 posts. The details of the posts and the pay-scales connected therewith were also sanctioned under another resolution of the said day.

(2.) Section 76 of the Maharashtra Municipalities Act, 1965 (hereinafter referred to as "the Act") requires previous sanction of the Government for creation of additional posts. The said power appears to have been delegated by the Government to the Commissioner and Regional Director. Clause 14 of the settlement under which Council has accorded its sanction on 6-12-1977 under its Resolution No. 130 also included a condition to secure prior approval as required under section 76 of the Act. The Chief Officer, thereafter moved the Collector through the Sub-Divisional Officer for required sanction both (i) of the settlement of the Commissioner under the circular of the Government to that effect and (ii) sanction for the Government to that effect and (iii) sanction for the creation of new posts under section 76 of the Act. The Collector accorded his sanction to the same on 14-7-1978. The Commissioner and Regional Director accorded his sanction on 2-9-1978. It must be noted at this stage that the proposal of the Chief Officer in this behalf contained details of the settlement indicating the financial commitment involved in creation of new 58 posts. The letter also indicates how the proposal was in order even from the financial point of view. Note put up to the Commissioner before his sanction on 2-9-1978 also drew his pointed attention to this financial commitment involved.

(3.) The Chief Officer promoted ten persons to the newly created posts out of the 58 posts. These posts could be filled in only after selection by the State Selection Board and the Chief Officer sent his proposals for their promotion by his letter dated 11-4-1979. His letter shows that the proposal did involve supersession of some of the senior employees. This appears to be in consonance with the settlement as other factors than the seniority was required to be taken into account while making promotions. Detailed letter of the Chief Officer to the Selection Board contained reasons why some of the seniors were superseded and juniors were preferred.