BHASKAR BHILA BHALKAR Vs. DHULE ZILLA PARISHAD

JUDGEMENT

(1.) Rule. Rule is made returnable forthwith and finally heard with consent of both the parties.

(2.) Originally in all twenty-five (25) petitioners filed the present petition assailing the judgment of the Industrial Tribunal, Dhule in Complaint (ULP) No. 144 of 2004. Out of them, the petitioners No. 12 to 22, 24 and 25 withdrew the petition since they were absorbed and regularized in newly formed Nandurbar district, protecting their promotions in Class III cadre. The petitioners No. 1 to 11 and 23 are the only aggrieved persons now and the petition is pressed into service only to their extent. They were Class IV employees working on establishment of Dhule Zilla Parishad before they were temporarily promoted in class III cadre on 18th March, 1997. All of them are promotees and were given promotions in keeping the relevant recruitment rules. Rule 5 of Maharashtra Zilla parishads District Services (Recruitment) Rules, 1967, provides for appointment to the class III posts by promotion as well as nomination. Thus, there are two sources of appointment and the only barrier created by Rule 6 is that the promotional posts shall not be filled in excess of 50%. Thus, the recruitment rules provide for filling up of promotional posts to the extent of 50%. The promotional posts are required to be filled up through the Departmental promotion Committee (DPC). The promotions of all the petitioners were accordingly made through appropriate process by the DPC. They were found eligible and as such were promoted to the class III cadre and since 1997 they are working on the promotional posts without interruption, though for technical purposes a gap of one day was given while revising the orders of promotion from time to time. Still, however, they were not regularized in the promotional posts in spite of continuous service in such posts and the incidental benefits, such as increments or the benefit of assured career progression scheme etc. , were not made available to them. Feeling aggrieved, they filed a complaint (ULP) No. 144/2004 alleging that the Zilla Parishad, Dhule/respondent had adopted unfair labour practice.

(3.) The respondent-Zilla Parishad contended that the petitioners were promoted on ad hoc basis, from time to time, only in order to fill up the posts as stop gap arrangement. They were not given regular promotions and as such they cannot claim any right. The Zilla Parishad contended that the petitioners cannot claim regularization when the regular procedure regarding the assessment of vacancy and availability of sanctioned posts was not properly considered. One of the contentions of the respondent was that only 25% of the posts could be filled up by promotion in view of the Government Resolution dated 15th April, 1991. The respondent further relied upon yet another Government Resolution dated 16th August, 1996 which provided for temporary promotions as well temporary nominations to the class III posts. The respondent submitted that it was not feasible to regularize the services of the petitioners and there was no unfair labour practice as such.