NANDED MUNICIPAL COUNCIL, NANDED Vs. BHAGWAN

JUDGEMENT

(1.) The Nanded Municipal Council, Nanded impugned the Judgment and Decree of learned Joint Civil Judge Junior Division, Nanded passed in Regular Civil Suit No.774 of 1986, dtd. 2/4/1987 and the Judgment and Decree of the learned Additional District Judge, Nanded passed in Regular Civil Appeal No.123 of 1987, dtd. 3/2/1995.

(2.) The Appellant would be referred to as "Defendant" and Respondents would be referred to as "Plaintiffs", for the sake of convenience.

(3.) The Plaintiffs had filed the Suit for perpetual Injunction restraining the Defendant from appointing Class-IV Employees without first appointing them in service as labourers. The Plaintiffs were Class-IV Employees. The Plaintiff Nos.1 to 23 have served with the Defendant in its Sanitation Department. Plaintiff Nos.24 to 39 have served in the Water Supply Department. Plaintiff Nos.40 to 47 have served in the Drainage Department. They had served with the Defendant for about nine months, a year or so. Plaintiff No.48 is a Registered Trade Union of Employees of the Defendant and has represented hundreds of grievances of the Labourers and Employees of the Defendant before the Defendant, the Labour Officer, the Assistant Commissioner of Labour, the Labour Court, etc. The Plaintiffs were employed on a daily rate basis. However, the Defendant discharged Plaintiff Nos.1 to 23 on 23/9/1986 and Plaintiff Nos.24 to 27 on 30/6/1986 from the services. Those posts were permanent. However, the Defendant is discharging them from service, employing New Workers. Such is an Unfair Labour Practice, and the Defendant was not entitled to Discharge Labourers in such an illegal way. They had made the representation for their continuity in the services. But, the Defendant did not pay heed. They had submitted representation before the Assistant Commissioner of Labour, Nanded and a settlement was arrived at between the Defendant and its daily rated Workers on 14/1/1980 to the effect that the daily rated Workers with their permanent appointment with the Defendant. Similar was the settlement in a subsequent Compromise, dtd. 9/1/1984 between the Workers and the Defendant. However, they were not confirmed. They have been deprived of benefits like regular Pay Scale, leave, medical Benefits, Gratuity, provident fund, etc. The Plaintiffs were discharged without notice and order. On 24/9/1986, the Defendant passed a Resolution for the appointment of Fifty Labourers. The Defendant had caused injustice upon the Plaintiffs. Hence, they prayed to issue the Injunction restraining it from appointing Class-IV Labourers without first appointing them in service.