S.N.PATHAK,J. - (1.) Petitioner has approached this court with a prayer for implementation of the agreement reached between employees federation and respondents vide no. 2077 dated 13.10.08, (Annexure-3) and vide no. 2780 dated 27.12.08 (Annexure-4) whereby five points demands were placed for discussion between petitioner federation on the one hand and respondents on the other hand. Further prayer has been made for payment of salary including other benefits to the member of the Federation who have not been paid the benefits similar to that of the employees of the State Govt. Factual Matrix:
(2.) The factual matrix in narrow compass is that on 26.11.08 a meeting was convened by the federation in which office bearers of the various functionaries of the federation of local bodies have participated and discussed about their long lying demand. In order to press their demand a prior statutory notice was served upon the respondents on 26.11.08, about, their intention to proceed on indefinite strike w.e.f. 6.1.09, the copy of the same notice has been circulated widely and it has been further communicated to almost all the Govt. functionaries who are in either way touched with genuine/justified legal demands of petitioner's federation. The Federation has also communicated the minutes of its demand to the secretary, Urban Development Department. The federation has further requested the state Govt. to look into their demands within fifteen days from the date of its notice failing which they will be constrained to proceed on indefinite strike. As the agreement was never considered nor given any effect to the petitioners went on strike as it was scheduled and continued for about 40 days. It is the case of the petitioner's Federation that on intervention of the Hon'ble court in W.P. (P.I.L) No. 306 of 2009, though the strike was called off, liberty was given to the petitioner to approach the Hon'ble court with grievances, if any, if they are not redressed by the State or the municipal corporation. In view of that a committee was constituted by the State Government in the month of February, 2009 to consider the demand of the petitioner but till date nothing has come out and as such the petitioners were constrained to move before this Hon'ble court.
(3.) As nobody appears on behalf of the petitioner this writ petition is disposed of in view of the averments made in the writ application and in view of the counter-affidavit filed by the respondents. The counsel for the respondent-State, Mr. Manoj Kumar Senior S.C. Mines is present. The learned counsel for the State argues that most of the grievances of the petitioners as mentioned in the five demands have been redressed. The learned counsel submits that as per the decision of the government 70 per cent of the salary of the employees of the corporation are to be paid by the State government and 30 per cent has to be paid by the corporation regarding regularization. Mr. Manoj Kumar, learned S.C. Mines further argues that steps have already been taken for regularization in view of the notification of 2015 and if the services of the employees falls within the ambit of the said notification, suitable orders are likely to be passed for consideration of regularization of their services. Further, it has also been argued that the petitioners have prayed for the benefit of the 5th Pay Revision and the respondents-State has already considered them for granting the benefit of 6th Pay Revision and as such the grievances of the petitioners have already been redressed and nothing remains to be paid to the petitioners or nothing remains for consideration.;