LAWS(BOM)-2012-12-17

KING EDWARD MEMORIAL HOSPITAL Vs. SURESH D. GAIKWAD

Decided On December 12, 2012
King Edward Memorial Hospital Appellant
V/S
Suresh D. Gaikwad Respondents

JUDGEMENT

(1.) Heard Mr. Cama, learned Senior Counsel for the petitioner and Ms Singh, learned Counsel for the respondent at length. Rule. The learned Counsel for the respondent waives service. By consent of the parties, Rule is made returnable forthwith and the Petition is taken up for final hearing.

(2.) By this Petition, under Articles 226 and 227 of the Constitution of India, the petitioners, hereinafter referred to as the employer have challenged the judgment and order dated 18.08.2012 passed by the learned Member, Industrial Court, Pune (for short 'Tribunal') in Complaint (ULP) No.230 of 2008. By that order, the Tribunal allowed the complaint instituted by the respondent, hereinafter referred to as the complainant and declared that the employer is engaged in unfair labour practice under Items 3, 5 and 9 of Schedule IV of the Maharashtra

(3.) It is the case of the complainant that he had served the Indian Army for fifteen years as a Driver. After completion of tenure of service in Army, he had enrolled his name with Soldier Service Board (for short 'Board') for the post of Driver. The employer was in the need of employing drivers in their establishment and accordingly called for the suitable candidates from the Board. Accordingly, the Board conveyed the names of the candidates including the name of the complainant. The employer interviewed the complainant and selected him for the post of Driver. He was issued appointment letter dated 04.05.1994. Subsequently, he was issued confirmation letter on 05.11.1994. It is the case of the complainant that he had never agreed either expressly or impliedly to work on the post other than Driver. He is continuously working with the employer as a Driver since last fourteen years in different departments and places of establishment of the employer as a Driver. In July, 2002, the employer demoted him to the post of lift operator thereby resorting to unfair labour practice. The employer also threatened to terminate his services.