RANJEET VITHALRAO SAVLE Vs. STATE OF MAHARASHTRA

JUDGEMENT

(1.) Present petitioners have approached this Court challenging judgment and order dtd. 1/4/2005 passed by the learned Industrial Court, Jalna in Complaint ULP Nos. 27/2001, 31/2001, 43/2001, 44/2001, 47/2001, 158/2001, 174/2001, 46/2002, 65/2003, 66/2003, 68/2003, 72/2003, 77/2003, 87/2003, 187/2003, 146/2003 and 156/2003. By way of the judgment, the learned Industrial Court refused to allow the complaints, by the present petitioners. The petitioners had prayed to declare that the respondent has indulged into unfair labour practices under Item Nos. 6,9 and 5 of Schedule IV of the Maharashtra Recognition of Trade Unions and Prevention of Unfair Labour Practices Act, 1971 . [for short " MRTU and PULP Act, 1971 "].

(2.) In short, it is case of the petitioners that the petitioners were appointed in the year 1992 till 1995 on the post of Clerk. The respondent-bank passed two resolutions dtd. 17/4/1995 and 31/7/1995. At the relevant time, the respondent-bank was in weak financial position and was facing financial crisis. To recover the amount, the respondent-bank had engaged employees i.e. these petitioners. However, the petitioners were not made permanent. The petitioners, therefore, filed ULP complaints. Initially, the Industrial Court granted order of status-quo. However, subsequently, the ULP complaints came to be dismissed by the judgment and order dtd. 1/4/2005. The respondent-bank, therefore, issued notice on 19/4/2005 and terminated services of the petitioners. The petitioners approached this Court challenging the said order. The petition came to be admitted by this Court by order dtd. 21/11/2005. Since the petitioners are facing difficulties, as they are out of service since 2005, this petition is moved for final hearing. Looking to the urgency, this Court decided to take up the matter for final hearing by consent of the parties, though the same is appeared in the order matters category.

(3.) At the outset, learned Advocate Mr. Bachate for the petitioners made submission that the respondent-bank has already filed affidavit in this writ petition, wherein it is stated that the bank is ready to consider the case of the petitioners sympathetically as per Sec. 25-H of the Industrial Disputes Act and thus the petitioners would be considered for giving employment in the bank, in-case there are vacancies available. In the affidavit, it is pointed out that the respondent-bank itself has stated that the bank has retrenched the daily wages workers by preparing their seniority list and removed them. As and when the bank required services of the daily wages workers on temporary or permanent basis, the bank will consider claim of the daily wages workers as per seniority. Learned Advocate Mr. Bachate, therefore, submits that this petition can be disposed off in view of the said statement appearing in the affidavit-in-reply by the respondent- bank.