PARVATI DIGAMBAR MOHEKAR Vs. STATE OF MAHARASHTRA

JUDGEMENT

(1.) RULE. Rule made returnable forthwith. With consent of learned counsel for the parties, the matter is taken up for final hearing immediately.

(2.) THE petitioner was working as Helper at Anganwadi, Ashti since 19. 12. 1990 and she was being paid fixed wages as revised from time to time. According to her, as per the Government Resolution dated 13. 10. 1997 and 06. 09. 2002, issued by Government, she is entitled to be appointed as Anganwadi Sevika from amongst the category of Helpers in Anganwadi. In spite of being qualified and having sufficient experience she was not appointed and applications were called by respondent nos. 2 and 3 for appointment to the post of Anganwadi Sevika within Ashti block in Zilla Parishad. It is contended that this amounts to unfair labour practice because they did not abide by the Government directions given as per above referred Government Resolutions. Therefore, she filed Complaint ULP No. 562/2003 under the Maharashtra Recognition of Trade Unions and Prevention of Unfair Labour Practice Act. The complaint was opposed and it was pointed out on behalf of respondent nos. 2 and 3 that a Selection Committee was appointed for the purpose of selection of Anganwadi Sevikas. The present petitioner had also made an application and had surrendered to that selection process but was not selected. Some other women, who are respondent nos. 4 to 7 before the Court, were already selected as such. It was contended that no unfair labour practice was adopted by respondent nos. 2 and 3.

(3.) AFTER having gone through the evidence for both the parties, learned Member, Industrial Court, observed that the present petitioner had herself applied for the post of Anganwadi Sevika in pursuance to the advertisement calling applications and having participated in that selection process and having not been selected, now she cannot make a grievance about the same. It was also observed that some of the women, who were selected were not parties to the said complaint and behind their back, no order could be passed complaining their selection and appointment. However, the Industrial Court held that in view of Government Resolution dated 13. 10. 1997, there is provision for appointment on the post of Anganwadi Sevika from amongst the experienced helpers working in the Anganwadis in the concerned town, block or village. However, for that purpose, it is necessary that the Seniority List should be maintained and appointment should be given by seniority. As no such seniority was maintained by respondent nos. 2 and 3, by the impugned judgment, the Industrial Court directed respondent nos. 2 and 3 to prepare seniority list of such helpers working in Anganwadis within two months from the date of order and also to absorb complainant/ petitioner in the post of Anganwadi Sevika as and when the post would be vacant according to her seniority in the seniority list. That order has been challenged in the present petition by original complainant/petitioner. According to her, because the seniority list was not prepared earlier, the Industrial Court could not have given directions to prepare fresh seniority list and that instead of such directions respondent nos. 2 and 3 should have been directed to straightway give appointment to the petitioner as Anganwadi Sevika.