STATE OF MAHARASHTRA Vs. DNYANESHWAR

JUDGEMENT

(1.) BY this petition, the petitioners, the State of Maharashtra and others, impugn the order passed by the Industrial Court, Nagpur on 23.07.2001 holding that the petitioners had engaged in unfair labour practices under Item 9 of Schedule IV of the Maharashtra Recognition of Trade Unions and Prevention of Unfair Labour Practices Act for not taking any steps for regularisation of respondent's absence from duty for the period from 01.09.1984 to 22.09.1985. The petitioners were directed to regularise the respondent's absence from duty for the period from 01.09.1984 to 22.09.1985 and also pay him salary for the said period.

(2.) THE original respondent had filed the complaint before the Industrial Court, Nagpur alleging unfair labour practice by the petitioners. According to the respondent, Superintending Engineer had called for an option of the other employees for absorption but, the request made on behalf of the respondent was not considered and subsequently he was absorbed in the Irrigation Department. It was the case of the respondent that he had never desired repatriation. However, according to the respondent on 17.07.1984, the respondent was transferred from Environmental Engineering Circle to MC (OP) Nagpur. The order dated 17.07.1984 was however, cancelled on 20.10.1984. Subsequently, by an order dated 30.10.1984, the previous order dated 17.07.1984 was restored. By an order dated 22.02.1985, the respondents posting at Gate Erection Division No.II was again cancelled and he was promoted as Senior Clerk in Sectional Division at Akola. Ultimately, by an order dated 26.08.1985, the respondent was posted at Gate Erection Division No.II at Karanja (Lad) and the respondent submitted his joining report from 23.09.1985. It was the case of the respondent that though the other employees were retained by the Board, the respondent was transferred to the Irrigation Department. According to the respondent, this amounted to unfair labour practice.

(3.) SHRI . Ahirkar, the learned Assistant Government Pleader appearing on behalf of the State submitted that the Industrial Court was not justified in regularising the absence of the respondent from duty for the period from 01.09.1984 to 22.09.1985. The learned Assistant Government Pleader submitted that the respondent had not joined the post of his transfer for a period of more than one year and in such circumstances, the Industrial Court was not justified in regularising his absence from duty and directing the petitioners to pay the salary to the respondent for the period from 01.09.1984 to 22.09.1985. The learned Assistant Government Pleader submitted that the evidence of the petitioner's witness was wrongly discarded by the Industrial Court.