Maharashtra State Board of Secondary and Higher Secondary Education, Nagpur Divisional Board, Nagpur and 3 ors. vs Avinashkumar Baliram Bhaisare and Others

R.M. Lodha, J.—Heard learned counsel for the parties. In the group of these 95 writ petitions, the petitioner-Maharashtra State Board of Secondary and Higher Secondary Education, Nagpur Divisional Board, Nagpur, (for short, ''the Board'') seeks to challenge the legality and correctness of the order passed by the Industrial, Court, Nagpur, on 10.2.1995 whereby while disposing of 237 U.L.P.A. complaints, including the complaints of respondents in the aforesaid writ petitions herein (for short, ''the complainants'') the Industrial Court directed the Board to give an opportunity and preference to the complainants for re-employment as daily wage clerks/peons as per their seniority if the respondents propose to take in their employment any other daily wage clerks/peons. The Industrial Court in the said order further observed that the Board shall give preference to the complainants as per seniority and qualification for being considered for permanent posts of clerks/peons if the posts are created and sanctioned in future.

An affidavit has been filed by the Divisional Chairman of the Board, Shri Anil Murlidhar Bedge, on 22.1.1996 stating therein that the Board has stopped the practice of appointing daily rate Class III workers as well as Class IV workers. Shri Bedge, Divisional Chairman of the Board, who is present in the Court in person, reiterates before me the statement made by him in the affidavit that the practice of engaging daily wage workers as clerks/peons has been stopped by the Board. There cannot be any reason to doubt the correctness of the statement made by Shri Bedge, Divisional Chairman of the Board, that the practice of appointing clerks/peons on daily wages has been stopped. Obviously, if the Board has stopped the practice of appointing Class III and Class IV workers on daily wages or as daily rate employees, the direction given by the Industrial Court in its order dated 10.2.1995 that the Board should give an opportunity and preference to the complainants for re-employment as daily wage clerks/peons as per their seniority, if the Board proposes to take into their employment any other daily wage clerks/peons, cannot be said to operate against the Board. The direction given by the Industrial Court to give an opportunity and preference to the complainants for re-employment as daily wage clerks/peons as per their seniority would only arise if the Board proposes to take into its employment any other daily wage clerks/peons. When the practice of appointing clerks/peons on daily wages has been discontinued by the Board, the direction given by the Industrial Court in its order dated 10.2.1995 is inconsequential. The learned counsel for respondents also admit that the direction given by the Industrial Court in its order dated 10.2.1995 to the Board to give an opportunity and preference to the complainant for re-employment as daily wage clerks/peons as per their seniority would only come into play if the Board takes into its employment any other daily wage clerks/peons and not otherwise.

In this view of the matter, the legality and correctness of the order passed by the Industrial Court on 10.2.1995 may not be gone into except observing that the direction given by the Industrial Court to the Board that an opportunity and preference to the complainants be given for re-employment as daily wage clerks/peons as per their seniority, has become ineffective, redundant and inconsequential on the face of unequivocal and categorical statement made by the Divisional Chairman of the Board before this Court that the practice of employing clerks/peons on daily wage has been stopped and discontinued.

As regards other observation made by the industrial Court in its order dated 10.2.1995 to the effect that the Board shall give preference to the complainants as per their seniority and qualification being considered for permanent posts of clerks/peons if the posts are created and sanctioned in future are concerned, the learned counsel appearing on behalf of the complainants candidly submit that the complainants have only the right of consideration on the posts of clerks/peons if they fulfil the eligibility fixed by the Board and the aforesaid observation made by Industrial Court do not go beyond that. Mrs. Khade, learned counsel for the petitioners, also submits that as and when vacancies for the posts of clerks/ peons are published by the Board, it would be open to the complainants to apply for the same and if they fulfil the eligibility criterion their names shall be considered in accordance with law. Mr. Begde, Divisional Chairman of the Board, also submits that as and when vacancies for the posts of clerks/ peons are published and if the complainants apply in accordance with the terms mentioned in the notification/advertisement and they fulfil eligibility criterion mentioned in such notification/advertisement, the applications of the complainants for such employment will be considered in accordance with law uninfluenced by the fact that they had filed complaints.

Any observation made in this order shall not be construed as an expression on the legality of the step taken by the Board in stopping or discontinuing the employment/engagement of clerks/peons on daily wages.

All the aforesaid writ petitions are disposed of in aforesaid terms. No costs.