SANJIVANI GRAMIN SHIKSHAN SOCIETY Vs. SACHIN

JUDGEMENT

(1.) A Society running a college of engineering, has filed this petition, challenging judgment and order passed by the Presiding Officer, Savitribai Phule, Pune, Shivaji and Solapur University and College Tribunal, Pune, (for short "the University and College Tribunal") dtd. 13/12/2019, granting reinstatement of respondent No. 1, by setting aside the oral termination dtd. 3/10/2012. The back wages are also granted from the date of oral termination.

(2.) Respondent No. 1 was the employee of the petitioners as appointed as peon. Respondent No. 2 is the Registrar of the University and College Tribunal. Respondent No. 1 was orally terminated by the petitioners. Respondent No. 1, therefore, initially approached the Industrial Tribunal. However, lateron he approached the University and College Tribunal. It is the case of respondent No. 1 that he was appointed to the post of peon, by following due procedure, on sanctioned post by order dtd. 20/11/2006. However, thereafter, suddenly original respondent No. 1 started paying his salary through vouchers only, show that he was appointed through a contractor. Though, his job was permanent and his work is regular, since he joined union by vindictive action he came to be orally terminated by the management. Initially under protest and after long gap he approached the Industrial Court. However, on realizing that the jurisdiction is with the University and College Tribunal, he withdraw ULP complaint and filed an appeal in the year 2017 and the same came to be allowed.

(3.) It is the case of the petitioners that the respondent No. 1 was never appointed as regular employee. He was only given the work of peon through the Contractor. Since he was appointed through Contractor, he is not entitled to any service benefits. Deliberately respondents approached the Industrial Court and almost for four years did nothing and thereafter, approached the University and College Tribunal. The University and College Tribunal has not considered all the facts. The University and College Tribunal has also granted back wages without there being any averments and evidence to show that respondent No. 1 was not a gainful employee after his termination. It is further submitted that before the Industrial Tribunal the respondents were made as parties and thus respondent No. 1 was aware that he was a contract labour and on realizing that he may not get relief from the Industrial Court, he approached the learned College Tribunal and this fact is not properly considered by the University and College Tribunal. It is further submitted that an appeal was barred by the limitation as it is filed almost after five years from the date of oral termination.