IN THE MAHARASHTRA ADMINISTRATIVE TRIBUNAL MUMBAI

IN THE MAHARASHTRA ADMINISTRATIVE TRIBUNAL

MUMBAI BENCH

ORIGINAL APPLICATION 374 OF 2014

DISTRICT : MUMBAI

1. Shri Sunil Thomas Tuskano )

2. Shri Sanjay Thomas Tuskano )

3. Shri Nandakumar Anant Sane )

4. Shri Dinesh Baliram Adlikar )

5. Shri Anil Anant Talekar )

6. Shri Prabhakar Chetan Guada )

7. Shri Vasant Shantaram Bhogate )

8. Shri Bhaskat Vinoba Parte )

9. Shri Ujjwal Vishnu Shinde )

10. Shri Narayan Bhavani Sahu )

11. Shri Ajay Ratan Wawhl )

12. Shri Raju Vithal More )

13. Shri Anil Dhonu Powle )

14. Shri Dhananjay Ankush Jamdade )

15. Shri Haibat Bhagwan Vichare )

16. Shri Nitin Bhaskar Rane )

17. Shri Rajesh Aatmaram Kadam )

18. Shri Santosh Aatmaram Raut )

19. Shri Dyaneshwar Raghunath Rane )

20. Shri Nitin Vishnu Bagul )

O.A no 374/2014

21. Shri Amit Bhagirath Shelke )

22. Shri Dinesh Jagannath Thosare )

23. Shri Chandrashekhar S. Salve )

24. Shri Pradeep Tatoba Lokhande )

25. Shri Suresh Panduran Rege )

26. Shri Nitin Krushna Palkar )

27. Shri Dattaram Sudhakar Patil, )

28. Shri Hemant Vishnu Davane )

29. Shri Girish Balkrushna Kadam, )

30. Shri Santosh G. Tambe )

31. Shri Munavar Kasam Khan, )

Add for service of notice: )

C/o: Mr. Ashish Gaikwad, )

Advocate, High Court, Off. R-8,F-2, )

Machinary House, Kalaghoda, )

B. Barucha Marg, Fort, )

Mumbai 400 001. )...Applicant

Versus

1. The Public Works Department, )

Through its Secretary, )

Mantralaya, Mumbai 400 032. )

2. The Chief Engineer, )

Public Works Department [Civil], )

floor, Badhkam Bhavan, )

Mumbai. )

O.A no 374/2014

3. The Chief Engineer, )

P.W.D [Electric], 3

floor, )

Bandhkam Bhavan, Mumbai. )

4. The Superintending Engineer, )

Public Works [Electric], Circle, )

Public Works Department, )

floor, Bandhkan Bhavan, )

Mumbai. )

5. The Superintending Engineer, )

Public Works [ Civil], )

floor, Bandhkan Bhavan, )

Mumbai. )

6. The Executive Engineer, )

Public Works Department, )

[Electrician], Division No. 5, )

floor, Bandhkam Bhavan, )

Mumbai. )...Respondents

Shri Ashish Gaikwad, learned advocate for the

Applicants.

Smt Kranti S. Gaikwad, learned Presenting Officer for the

Respondents.

CORAM : Shri Rajiv Agarwal (Vice-Chairman)

DATE : 05.08.2016

O.A no 374/2014

O R D E R

1. Heard Shri Ashish Gaikwad, learned advocate

for the Applicants and Smt Kranti S. Gaikwad, learned

Presenting Officer for the Respondents.

2. This Original Application has been filed by 31

Group ‘D’ employees of the Public Works Department

(P.W.D) challenging the G.R dated 13.2.2014 by which

378 posts in Civil and 60 posts in Electrical Wing of

Manora M.L.A’s Hostel and Sahyadri Guest House in

Mumbai were converted from Daily rated establishment

to converted Temporary establishment. The Applicants’

who are from Electric Wing were regularized in service

with effect from 21.9.2010, along with other employees as

per clause 28 of the Kalelkar agreement. The Applicants

are claiming that they are entitled to be regularized in

service with effect from the date of initial appointment on

daily wages by order dated 15.11.1996.

3. Learned Counsel for the Applicants stated that

the Applicants were selected after their names were

called from Employment Exchange and after they were

duly interviewed and appointed by order dated

15.11.1996 on the basic pay of Rs. 775/- on the post of

Majdoor/Asst. Wiremen for 14 days. They were continued

after giving technical breaks. Learned Counsel for the

Applicants stated that the Applicants continued to

O.A no 374/2014

discharge the duties of Helper, Liftman, Boiler-operator,

Wiremen, Pump Operator etc. The Applicants had

technical qualifications for the posts on which they were

working. They have continued to work on these posts till

date. The Applicants were appointed on daily wages in

the pay scale of Rs. 2610-4000 for Liftmen, Rs. 3050-

4590 for the post of Wiremen and Rs. 3200-4900 for the

post of Firemen from 7.10.2005 for 26 days at a time.

The Applicants worked continuously for more than 340

days after order in 2005 was issued. Learned Counsel for

the Applicants argued that the Applicants were selected

in a regular selection procedure and have worked for 18

years on the post of Majdoor/Assistant Wiremen, though

they were actually working on technical posts. Learned

Counsel for the Applicants stated that a G.R dated

16.9.2005 was issued to create posts on Daily Rated

Establishment and the Applicants were absorbed on that

establishment. A Committee called ‘Chari Committee’,

was appointed to look into the requirement of posts for

M.L.A Hostel, Manora which has recommended staffing

pattern for the new M.L.A Hostel, Manora. However, that

recommendation was not accepted and the Applicants

were given jobs on Daily Rated Establishment though

they should have been absorbed on regular basis. As the

Applicants were serving in M.L.A Hostel, many M.L.As

had written to the Government about regularizing their

services. However, no reply was received. The Respondent

no. 1 issued G.R dated 13.2.2014, which has caused

O.A no 374/2014

grave prejudice to the Applicants, who were appointed in

1996 and are entitled to be given regular pay scales etc.

from the date of the initial appointment.

4. Learned Counsel for the Applicants argued

that the G.R dated 13.2.2014 is discriminatory and

arbitrary and violative of the fundamental rights of the

employees. The Applicants are part of 58 employees, who

were sponsored by the Employment Exchange and who

were appointed after following due procedure. The

Applicants’ case is different from other employees, whose

services were regularized, as they (other employees) were

probably not appointed after following the due procedure

of selection. The Applicants had sent legal notices to the

Respondents through their Advocate on 22.3.2014 and

28.2.2014. However, the Applicants did not receive any

reply. Learned Counsel for the Applicants argued that

there is no question of Kalelkar Award (Agreement) being

applicable in their case, as they were appointed after due

procedure was followed in regular service as per

provisions of the Maharashtra Civil Services Rules.

5. Learned Presenting Officer (P.O) argued on

behalf of the Respondents that the Original Application is

totally vague and does not disclose the legal basis on

which the Applicants are seeking regularization of their

service from the date of initial appointment. The

Applicants were appointed by order dated 11.10.1996 as

O.A no 374/2014

Majdoor/Liftmen for 14 days only. They were not

appointed on regular or permanent vacancies in P.W.D.

The Applicants were appointed on daily wages and after

completion of 240 days of work, have approached the

Industrial Court, Mumbai, for regularization of their

services. This fact, itself shows that the Applicants were

not appointed under any of the Maharashtra Civil

Services Rules. There was a compromise reached

between the parties in complaint no. ULP 347/2000. On

the basis of the compromise, G.R dated 16.9.2005 was

issued and 444 Civil and 64 Electrical posts were created

on Daily Wages Establishment for Manora MLA Hostel

and Sahyadri Guest House in Mumbai. All the Applicants

were accordingly absorbed. 8 posts of Wiremen, 10 posts

of Firemen and 40 posts of Liftmen were created on Daily

Wages Establishment and all the Applicants were

absorbed in these posts. Learned Presenting Officer

argued that the Applicants are seeking regularization

since 1996 but have not sought condonation of delay and

on that ground alone this Original Application deserves

to be dismissed. Learned Presenting Officer stated that

the documents at Exhibit ‘B’ and ‘C’ may not be genuine.

Exhibit ‘C’, in any case, is a computer generated

document without any authenticity. No proposal was

sent to Finance Department for approval to give

appointment to the Applicants in 1996 or 2005. There is

no material in support of this contention. Learned

Presenting Officer argued that the Applicants were

O.A no 374/2014

appointed on non-technical posts except (Wiremen) and

they did not have any technical qualifications except

those appointed as Wiremen. The Applicants have been

working on non-technical posts on which they were

appointed. Learned Presenting Officer argued that as per

Kalelkar Award, clause 28, the employees working on

Daily Wages Establishment were taken on Converted

Regular Temporary Establishment (CRTE) by G.R dated

13.2.2014, which is challenged in the present Original

Application. Learned Presenting Officer argued that G.R

dated 13.2.2014 is eminently fair and is not

discriminatory at all. All the employees brought on CRTE

are similarly placed. Even the present Applicants were

not selected on clear and permanent vacancies by

following proper procedure. If that was the case, a

regular advertisement inviting applications from open

market would have been issued and there would have

been a written test as per Government Resolution in the

field. However, in 1996, no clear and permanent

vacancies were in existence. The Applicants were given

appointment on daily wages initially and as per the

compromise reached in the Industrial Court, they were

taken on Daily Rated Establishment by G.R dated

16.9.2005 as per Kalelkar Award. The Applicants have

enjoyed the benefit of G.R dated 16.9.2005 and now they

cannot turn around and claim that they had not

approached the Industrial Court or wrongly approached

that Court. Learned Presenting Officer argued that the

O.A no 374/2014

Applicants have, by their conduct, having taken the same

matter before the Industrial Court, have acquiesced and

cannot challenge the jurisdiction of that Court now. Now

the same issue is raised before this Tribunal. As the

Applicants are not governed by Maharashtra Civil Service

Rules, they have no right to approach this Tribunal. This

sort of Forum-Shopping should be discouraged. Learned

Presenting Officer referred to the judgment of the Hon’ble

Supreme Court in the case of SECRETARY, STATE OF

KARNATAKA & ORS Vs. UMADEVI (3) & ORS : (2006)

4 SCC 1, in which Hon’ble Supreme Court has held that

daily wage employees like the Applicants cannot claim

regularization of their services.

6. The Applicants have made a lot of averments

in this Original Application and most have been denied

by the Respondents in their affidavit in reply dated

25.7.2014. I will, therefore, rely on the material which is

placed on record by the parties. Documents at Exhibit ‘A’

is the letter given to the Applicant no. 1 dated 27.9.1996,

calling him for interview on 9.10.1996. His name was

received from Employment Exchange for appointment to

the post of Majdoor/Liftmen for 14 days on daily wages.

The documents in Exhibit ‘B’ are denied by the

Respondents. Documents as Exhibit ‘C’ is a computer

statement which gives details about the Applicants. This

document does not disclose that any of the Applicants

has any technical qualifications. The highest educational

O.A no 374/2014

qualification is possessed by one Ajay R. Vavhal, who is

Pass (or 12

Pass). The claim of the Applicants that

they had technical qualification and were actually

working on such posts which will make them eligible to

work on technical posts is not borne out by the factual

information, supplied by themselves. Exhibit ‘D’ is the

office order dated 11.10.1996, appointing 25 persons, 11

as Majdoor and 14 as Liftmen on daily wages for 14 days.

The Applicants have not indicated, how many of the

Applicants’ names are included in that office order.

Names of first four Applicants are seen, though there

may be other Applicants also in the list as I have not

scrutinized it thoroughly. It is presumed that other

Applicants must have been given similar orders to work

as Majdoor/Liftmen. This order clearly mentions that the

services of the Applicants were liable to be terminated

without notice after 14 days. This is an important fact,

which has to be kept in mind.

7. The Respondents have placed on record an

agreement in the Industrial Court, Mumbai, in U.L.P no

347/2000 between, Secretary, P.W.D & Others and

Maharashtra State Public Works Employees Union at

Exhibit R-1 (Page 168 of the Paper Book). This is not

denied by the Applicants. In para (1) of the agreement, it

is stated that:-

O.A no 374/2014

“vtZnkj gs jftLVj ;qfu;u vlwu R;kauh uohu vkenkj fuokl euksjk ;sFkhy jkstankjh

etqjkackcr fo|eku U;k;ky;kr dsl nk[ky dsysyh vkgs- R;k vuq”kaxkus vtZnkj

;kauh vtkZlkscr ‘ksM;qy fnysys vkgs o R;ku deZpk&;kaps ukao] inuke] ‘kS{kf.kd

vgZrk] fu;qDrh n;ko;kps in rlsp lsokHkjrhpk fnukad uewn dsyk vkgs- vkrk vtZnkj

;qfu;u ‘ksM;qye/;s ueqn dsysY;k deZpk&;kackcr o xSjvtZnkjke/;s [kkyhyizek.ks

rMtksM dsysyh vkgs- egkjk”Vª jkT; lkoZtfud cka/kdke deZpkjh la?kkrQsZ

‘ksM;qye/khy deZpk&;kadjhrk dEeySV ;q-,y-ih-347@2000 nk[ky dj.ksdjhrk o

rMtksMhdjhrk] rMtksM vtkZoj lgh dj.ksdjhrk la?kkus Jh- c`tikyflag ljfpV.khl

;kauk vf/kdkjh fnys vkgsr-”

It is clearly mentioned that the Applicants in

ULP/Labourer will be deemed to have worked on Daily

Wages Establishment from the date of their appointment.

The list of 57 persons working in Electrical Wing of the

P.W.D in Manora M.L.A Hostel is attached. I have

verified that names of all the Applicants are included in

that list. Applicants nos 25 & 26 are Wiremen and the

rest are Liftmen. For the persons appointed as Wiremen,

they have necessary Certificates obtained in 1999 and

2000 respectively for the Applicants no 25 & 26

respectively. Office order dated 1.10.2005, (Exhibit ‘E’)

has been issued after G.R dated 16.9.2005 was issued by

the Government (Exhibit ‘F’) to give effect to the

compromise reached in ULP no 347/2000. The

Applicants were deemed to have been taken on Daily

Wages Establishment with effect from 16.9.2005. There

is nothing on record that any of the employees protested

regarding this G.R dated 16.9.2005. The Applicants

O.A no 374/2014

claim that the G.R dated 16.9.2005 had the following

conditions viz.

“¼2½ lacaf/kr inklkBh ykxw vl.kkjh o;] f’k’k.k] o lsok;kstu dk;kZy;kph

vko’;drs uqlkj vV f’kf/ky d:u R;kauk jkstankjh vkLFkkiusoj use.kd ns.;kr

;sbZy-

¼3½ lkoZtfud cka/kdke foHkkxkrhy v jkstankjh vkLFkkius ojhy deZpk&;kizek.ks ;k

depk&;kauk fu;qDrh uarj dkysydj djkjkuqlkj lsokfu;e o loyrh pkyq

jkgrhy”.

Learned Counsel for the Applicants argued that this

condition no. 2 was not applicable to the Applicants as

their names were sent by the Employment Exchange and

they had already fulfilled the requirement of age and

educational qualification. From the material on record, it

is difficult to accept this contention of the Applicants.

From Exhibit ‘D’ which is order of appointment of some of

the Applicants dated 11.10.1996, it cannot be inferred

that all the 31 present Applicants were sponsored by the

Employment Exchange. Some of the Applicants, however,

were sponsored by the Employment Exchange. Except

Exhibit ‘D’ and Exhibit ‘A’, there is no other material on

record in this regard. The claim of the Applicants in this

regard is, at best, partially correct. However, even if the

claim of the Applicants, for the sake of arguments, is

accepted as correct, the facts that they were sponsored

by the Employment Exchange and fulfilled the

requirement of age and educational qualification will not

O.A no 374/2014

entitle them to be given regular employment, when there

were no sanctioned posts available to appoint them.

From condition no. 3, it is clear that there were other

Daily Wage Establishments in P.W.D and such

establishments were sanctioned as per Kalelkar

Agreement. The Applicants were thus fully aware in 2005

that they were brought on Daily Wages Establishment as

per Kalelkar Award. Learned Counsel for the Applicants

stated that a Committee headed by the then Principal

Secretary, Finance Department was appointed to

recommend posts required for running Manora M.L.A

Hostel. (Chari Committee) The Committee had

recommended creation of 543 posts. However, the

recommendations of the Committee were not accepted by

the Government. The Applicants have placed a copy of

Cabinet Note also on record, during the course of oral

arguments. These documents are not authenticated and

no reliance can be placed on them. We have to strictly go

as per the contents of G.R dated 16.9.2005 (Exhibit ‘F’)

which does mention that ‘Chari Committee’ was

appointed and made certain recommendations. It also

mentions that the recommendations were not accepted

by the Government. No decision can be taken by this

Tribunal on mere recommendation of a Committee, that

too after more than 11 years. Exhibit ‘G’ contains

recommendations of various M.L.A/M.L.Cs. There is a

cut motion dated 12.4.2010, on the budget demands in

support of regularization of services of daily wage workers

O.A no 374/2014

in Manora M.L.A Hostel. Exhibit ‘H’ (page 104 of the

Paper Book) is a representation from Rashtravadi General

Kamgar Sangh dated 9.9.2011 where this issue of 58

employees of the Electrical Wing working in Manora

M.L.A Hostel is raised for the first time and demand for

amending G.R dated 16.9.2005 is made. It is quite

evident that till 2011, the Applicants had fully accepted

the G.R dated 16.9.2005 and enjoyed the benefits. It is

not clear whether the Applicants are members of this

Rashtravadi General Kamgar Sangh. However, from 6.15

of the Original Application, it can be inferred that they

are members of that Union. It is already noted that the

Applicants had never stated that all of them were not a

party to the agreement in ULP no. 347/2000 before the

Industrial Court, Mumbai. They have enjoyed the benefit

of this agreement and thus constructively admitted

validity of this agreement. As per their own admission, till

2011, they had not demanded modification in the G.R

dated 16.9.2005.

8. The Respondent no. 1 has issued G.R dated

13.2.2014 bringing a total of (378 + 60) 438 posts on

Converted Regular Temporary Establishment as per

clause 28 of the Kalelkar Agreement. This clause reads:-

“28- Jkstankjh dkexkjkauk dkGsydj djkjkuqlkj feG.kk&;k loyrh ¼fu;fer

vkLFkkiusoj use.kwd feG.;kckcr½ % tks jkstankjhojhy dkexkj lrr ikapo”kZs R;k

vkLFkkiusoj lsok djhr vlsy v’kk dkexkjk us ikap o”ksZ iw.kZ >kysY;k dkGkuarj gs in

O.A no 374/2014

/kkj.k dsysys vlsy rs in :ikarfjr vkLFkk;h vLFkkiusoj :ikarfjr dj.;kr ;srs o

v’kk :ikarfjr inkoj R;k jkstankjh dkexkjhph use.kwd dj.;kr ;srs- dikarjfr

vkLFkkiusoj fuekZ.k dsysys in ?kkj.kdrh O;Drhp oS’fDrd in vlrs o R;kus rs

dks.kR;kgh dkj.kkLro lksmys rj rs u”V gksrs- :ik vLFkkfg vkLFkkiusoj dkekxkj

useyk xsyk dh R;kyk eqacbZ- eqacbZ lsok fu;e ykxw gksrkr”.

There is no doubt that Daily Wages Establishment is

recognized under Kalelkar agreement and after a person

has worked for five years on that establishment, he is

taken on ‘Converted Regular Temporary Establishment’

(CRTE). After a person is taken on CRTE, he is governed

by Mumbai Civil Services Rules (now Maharashtra Civil

Services Rules). It is clear that the Applicants were taken

on Daily Wages Establishment by G.R dated 16.9.2005,

as per compromise in ULP no. 347/2000 in the Industrial

Court, Mumbai. Now by G.R dated 13.2.2014, their

services are transferred to CRTE from 21.9.2010, i.e. 5

years, after they were taken on Daily Wages

Establishment. There cannot be any doubt that the

Applicants are bound by compromise in ULP no.

347/2000 and therefore, they are in no position to

challenge the validity of G.R dated 16.9.2005. G.R dated

13.2.2014 has been issued strictly as per clause 28 of

Kalelkar Agreement and I do not see as to how the

Applicant can challenge the same.

9. Learned Counsel for the Applicants has place

on record order dated 7.3.2014 in U.L.P no 98/2008

O.A no 374/2014

pending before the Industrial Court at Mumbai.

Applicants no 1 to 9 were allowed to withdraw their

claim. These nine persons are the Applicants no 9, 24,

25, 26, 27, 28, 29, 30 & 31 in the present Original

Application. They have resigned the membership of

Maharashtra Rajya Sarvajanik Bandhkam Karmachari

Sangh on 6.3.2014. The same Sangh was the

complainant in U.L.P no 347/2000. This is a clear proof

that those Applicants were party of the compromise in

ULP no. 347/2000 which resulted in issuance of G.R

dated 16.9.2005. These 9 Applicants had given a legal

notice dated 15.3.2014 to the Respondents through their

advocate (P. 135 of the Paper Book). It is admitted that

Maharashtra Rajya Sarvajanik Bandhakam Karmachari

Sangh had approached the Industrial Court, Mumbai in

ULP no 98/2008 for implementation of Kalelkar Award.

Now that the Respondents have implemented the

Kalelkar Award, it is not understood as to how these

Applicants can change their demands altogether and

claim that they are not bound by Kalelkar Award. Rest of

the Applicants numbering 22 had given notice dated

28.2.2014 (p. 126 of the Paper Book). It appears that

they were not a party to ULP no.98/2008. However, they

had constructively agreed to abide by the Kalelkar Award

by agreeing to be governed by G.R dated 16.9.2005,

which was issued after a compromise between the

Workers Union and the Government. They cannot now

turn around and claim that they are not workers and

O.A no 374/2014

from 1996 governed by Maharashtra Civil Services Rules.

This claim has to be rejected.

10. Learned Counsel for the Applicants relied on

the judgment of Hon’ble Supreme Court in the case of

A.R ANTULE Vs. R.S. NAYAK and another reported in

AIR 1988 SC 1531. Learned Counsel for the Applicants

argued that Hon’ble Supreme Court has held that the

judgment of a Court having no proper jurisdiction is a

nullity. It is mentioned in para 181 of the judgment

which reads:-

“The answer to these contentions must depend on

what the position in law is when a Court entertains

a suit or an appeal over which it has no jurisdiction

and what the effect of Section 1 of the Suits

Valuation Act is on that position. It is a

fundamental principle well established that a decree

passed by a Court without jurisdiction is a nullity

and that its invalidity could be set up whenever and

wherever it is sought to be enforced or relied upon,

even at the stage of execution and even in collateral

proceedings. A defect of jurisdiction, whether it is

pecuniary or territorial or whether it is in respect of

the subject matter of the action, strikes at the very

authority of the Court to pass any decree, and such

a defect cannot be cured even by consent of parties.

If the question now under consideration fell to be

O.A no 374/2014

determined only on the application of general

principles governing the matter, there can be no

doubt that the District Court of Monghyr was coram

non judice, and that its judgments and decree

would be nullities.”

Learned Counsel for the Applicants argued that the

Applicants are seeking remedy under Maharashtra Civil

Services Rules as State Government employees and

therefore, this Tribunal has exclusive jurisdiction.

Industrial Court has no jurisdiction in the matter and

any judgment given by that Court is a nullity in the eyes

of law. I am afraid that this contention cannot be

accepted. From the perusal of Kalelkar Award, it is clear

that workers in P.W.D till they are taken on Converted-

Regular Temporary Establishment are in the jurisdiction

of Labour / Industrial Courts. Only after such workers

are taken on CRTE, Maharashtra Civil Service Rules are

applicable to them. Whether this Tribunal can declare a

judgment of Industrial Court at nullity? The answer is a

categorical ‘No’. In the present case, the Applicants have

been enjoying the fruits of litigation before the Industrial

Court, Mumbai in ULP no. 347/2000 since 2005. This

judgment cited by the Applicants is clearly not applicable

in the present Original Application.

11. Learned Presenting Officer has relied on the

judgment of Hon’ble Supreme Court in UMADEVI (3)

O.A no 374/2014

supra. Hon’ble Supreme Court has held in para 43 of the

judgment that:-

“43. Thus, it is clear that adherence to the rule of

equality in public employment is a basic feature of

our Constitution and since the rule of law is the

core of our Constitution, a Court would certainly be

disabled from passing an order upholding violation

of Article 14 in ordering overlooking of the need to

comply with the requirements of Article 14 read

with Article 16 of the Constitution. Therefore,

consistent with the scheme for public employment,

this Court, while laying down the law, has

necessarily to hold that unless the appointment is

in terms of the relevant rules and after a proper

competition among qualified persons, the same

would not confer rights on the appointee.”

12. Two things are important, viz. that the

appointment must be as per relevant rules and it should

be after a proper competition among qualified persons. In

the present case, both this facts are absent. For

employment under the Government calling names from

Employment Exchange is not enough (it is one of the

several modes to invite applications). Hon’ble Supreme

Court in many cases has held that it is imperative to

issue a public notice, so that all those who are qualified

get opportunity to compete. In the present case, it is not

O.A no 374/2014

established that all the Applicants were sponsored

through Employment Exchange. It is an established fact

that no advertisement was issued to fill up these posts.

Another important fact is that the Applicants were not

appointed against clear and sanctioned posts. In fact,

these are no sanctioned posts even now. The Applicants

have no case on merit. They cannot be allowed to

approach different Courts for the same reliefs for at

different times. They had already enjoyed the fruits of

decision of Industrial Court, Mumbai. They cannot be

now allowed to approach this Tribunal with a request to

declare the decision of Industrial Court as nullity. This is

rank opportunism and cannot be allowed.

13. The Applicants have not been able to challenge

the veracity of G.R dated 13.2.2014, and as a result this

Original Application must fail. This Original Application

is accordingly dismissed with no order as to costs.

Sd/-

(Rajiv Agarwal)

Vice-Chairman

Place : Mumbai

Date : 05.08.2016

Dictation taken by : A.K. Nair.

H:\Anil Nair\Judgments\2016\1st Aug 2016\O.A 374.14 Regularization of service

SB.0816.doc