SURESH RAGHUNATH MISTRI Vs. BHIWANDI NIZAMPUR MUNICIPAL COUNCIL

JUDGEMENT

(1.) THIS writ petition has been filed by eight workmen of the First Respondent Municipal Council. Their complaints under the provisions of the Maharashtra Recognition of Trade Unions and Prevention of Unfair Labour practices Act, 1971 (hereinafter referred to as 'the Act') were dismissed by the Industrial Court, Thane, by its order dated November 28, 1986.

(2.) AFTER having carefully read the impugned order, I am of the view that the approach of the Industrial Court in dealing with the grievances was erroneous, without focussing its attention on the relevant issues which required trial. The Court below has misdirected itself in law.

(3.) THE case made out by the petitioners in their respective complaints filed under Section 28 of the Act, read with items 5, 6, 9 and 10 of the Schedule IV of the Act, was simple. The case was that there was an Award passed by the Industrial Tribunal in Reference (IT) No. 412 of 1966 to which both the First Respondent and the workmen were parties under which there was a direction that the workmen who had completed one year's service were to be made permanent subject to availability of clear vacancy in a permanent post. The grievance made by the Petitioners was that they were all working as Fireman from the years 1976, 1977, 1978, 1979 and 1980 and, inspite of there being clear vacancies, they had not been made permanent by the First Respondent with a view to deprive them of their rights, status and benefits arising from the permanency. On the state of the record as it stands before me, and even upon perusal of the order of the Court below it is not possible to ascertain whether, as on the date of the complaint, there were any existing clear vacancies of permanent posts, and, if so, how many vacancies are there. The only argument, which seems to have impressed the Industrial Court, is the argument of the First Respondent that, by a Circular dated March 2, 1981 issued by the Directorate of Municipal Administration certain minimum qualifications for appointment of fireman were prescribed and that the Petitioners did not fulfil those qualifications. The First Respondent contended that the Petitioner were totally ineligible for appointment on posts of firemen. It is not understood as to how a Circular issued in 1981 laying down minimum qualification for posts of firemen could have been made applicable retrospectively to the Petitioners who were employed between the period 1976 to 1980. The Industrial Court seems to have been overtly impressed ky the fact that the First Respondent had passed a Resolution No. 283 dated September 22, 1981, by which minimum qualification for the post of a fireman was relaxed and that the said Resolution had been forwarded for the sanction of the Commissioner, but had not yet been approved of as on the date of the trial. Mr. Pradhan appearing for the First Respondent is unable to categorically say whether the said Resolution has been, approved or rejected, even today. The grounds for dismissing the complaints of the Petitioners are two-fold. First, Respondent had forwarded its resolution No. 283 dated September 22, 1981 to the appropriate authority, which absolved the First Respondent of all allegations of malafides. Neither of these grounds is satisfactory. In my view, it is not possible to dispose of the complaints at this stage as the necessary issues, nor evidence appear to have been recorded; without recording proper issues and proper evidence, the dismissal of the petitioners' complaints was erroneous. In my view, the petitioners are entitled to have their complaints tried in accordance with law.