DILIPINDRABHANJI WAWANDE Vs. INDUSTRIAL COURT NAGPUR

JUDGEMENT

(1.) BY the instant petition, the petitioner has challenged the order dated 14-2-1994, passed by the industrial Court, Nagpur, on the application filed under section 30 (2) of the Maharashtra recognition of Trade Unions and Prevention of Unfair Labour Practices Act, 1971 (for short the mrtu and PULP Act) by the respondent no. 2 praying for an interim relief during pendency of his complaint under section 28 of the MRTU and PULP Act, seeking regularisation of his services on the post of Instructor in the faculty of fitter under respondent no. 3, the divisional social welfare officer. By this interim order dated 14th February, 1994, the Industrial Court had directed respondents Nos. 1 and 2 to the complaint, that is present respondent no. 3 the divisional Social Welfare Officer and the Principal of the Government Industrial Training institute, Wardha, for the physically handicapped persons not to terminate the services of the complainant during the pendency of his main complaint.

(2.) IT is an undisputed fact that respondent no. 3 the Divisional Social Welfare Officer, runs the government Industrial Training Institute at Wardha for the physically handicapped students and there are some posts of Instructor in composing, binding and fitting sections. It is claimed by respondent no. 3 that in the year 1989, there arose a need of filling in the posts of Instructor in fitting section. As per respondent no. 3, the post was reserved for scheduled casts and the same had to be filled in only through the recommendations from the Regional Service Selection Board, which is a lengthy process and takes some time for recruitment and further since the requirement was somewhat urgent the respondent no. 3 filled in that post by appointing present respondent no. 2 Shri M. D. Jamunkar who belongs to 'obc' category and not to the 'sc' category as a stop gap arrangement temporarily and further on the condition that his service was liable to be terminated without prior intimation and notice on the selection and recommendation if made of the suitable candidates by the Regional Service Selection Board. The order of the appointment also specifically stated that the appointment was made for a period of six months only. The respondent no. 2's first appointment order on these terms is dated 6-12-1989. The respondent no. 2 subsequently was again appointed on similar terms by the orders dated 1-6-1990, 5-8-1991, 8-8-1991, 1-11-1991, 6-1-1992, 19-5-1992, 17-2-1993, 14-5-1993, 18-10-1993 and 9-11-1993. The last order of appointment on these terms was dated 22-11-1994. The respondent no. 2 was appointed for a period of one month or till the selection was made by the Regional Selection board, whichever, was the earlier. In the meanwhile respondent no. 3 undisputedly had sent a proposal to respondent No. 4 the Regional Selection Board to select a suitable candidate from the sc category to fill up the post of Instructor in 'fitting Section'. The Regional Selection Board issued an advertisement accordingly on 24-4-1993. Since the post was shown as reserved for 'sc' candidates, probably the respondent no. 2 did not apply. Several other persons had also applied including the present petitioner. The petitioner was selected by the Regional Selection Board on 27-8-1993. Since the Respondent No. 2 was not in a position to get the employment because the post was reserved and further since according to him he had completed more than 240 days of service continuously and without any break, he was entitled to be made permanent on the post of 'instructor in Fitting Section', he filed a complaint ULP No. 1268/1993 under the MRTU and pulp Act before the Industrial Court. He claimed therein that he be made permanent on the post of Instructor in the faculty of Fitter and be given benefits of permanent employee, having completed 240 days of service. It is in this complaint which is dated 27th September, 1993, respondent no. 2 in January, 1994, filed an application under section 30 (2) of the MRTU and pulp Act, alleging therein that the petitioner has been selected by respondent no. 1 the divisional Social Welfare Officer present respondent no. 3 through the Regional Service selection Board for appointment to the said post of 'instructor in Fitting Section' and though respondent no. 2 Madan Jamunkar was then working on the said post since his initial appointment in the month of December, 1989, instead of regularising the services of respondent no. 2 respondent no. 3 is likely to give appointment to present petitioner and as such direction should be issued to respondent no. 3 and the Principal of the Institute instructing them not to appoint fresh candidate in place of respondent no. 2 and not to terminate his services to allow him to work as Instructor in Fitting Section pending in the main complaint.

(3.) IT is on this application as aforesaid the Industrial Court has passed the order on 14-2-1994 directing respondent no. 3 and the Principal of the Institute not to terminate the services of respondent no. 2 the complainant during the pendency of the main petition.