IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY BENCH AT AURANGABAD WRIT PETITION NO. 4186 OF 2020 Shyamlal Bhikan Deokar VERSUS Zilla Parishad Aurangabad Through Chief Officer Mr. P. F. Patni, Advocate for Petitioner Mr. U. B. Bondar, Advocate for Respondent CORAM : R. M. JOSHI, J. DATE : 14th AUGUST, 2025 PER COURT :- 1. This petition takes exception to the order dated 12.11.2018 passed by Industrial Court, Aurangabad in Complaint (ULP) No. 114/2016 filed under Section 28, 30 r/w item Nos. 9 and 10 of Schedule. IV of the Maharashtra Recognition of Trade Unions and Prevention of Unfair Labour Practices Act, 1971 whereby complaint filed by petitioner came to be dismissed. 2. The facts which led to the filing of this petition can be narrated in brief as under :- Admittedly, petitioner worked with Zilla Parishad as a Gramsevak since 16.05.1983. On 18.11.1966, he was arrested for the offences under the prevention of Corruption Act and subsequently charge sheeted there for. He 919-WP-4186-2020.odt 1 of 5 2025:BHC-AUG:22390 came to be convicted by the special Court by judgment and order dated 16.01.2002. Petitioner preferred appeal against the said conviction by filing criminal Appeal No. 56/2002. This appeal was allowed on 06.10.2015 and petitioner is acquitted from the charges. It is case of the petitioner that he was allowed to join the service on the last date of his retirement i.e., on 31.03.2016. He made representation for the benefits pursuant to the acquittal granted by the High Court. Impugned order came to be passed on 28.03.2016 on the said representation. The relevant clauses of the said order read thus :- 1½ ek- mPPk U;k;ky; [kaMihB vkSjaxkckn ;kapk nks”keqDr dsY;kpk fu.kZ; fnukad 6@10@2015 rs izR;{k #tq gksbZi;Zarpk dkyko/kh egkjk”Vª ukxjh lsok ¼inxzg.k] fLo;sÙkj lsok vkf.k fuyacu] cMrQhZ o lsosrqu dk<qu Vkd.ks bZR;knh½ dkGkrhy iznkus fu;e 1981 ps fu;e 71 e/khy rjrqnh uqlkj fnukad loZ iz;kstukFkZ lsok dkyko/kh eku.;kr ;srks- 2½ fnukad 10@12@1996 rs 26@04@2011 gk dkyko/kh egkjk”Vª ukxjh lsok ¼inxzg.k]fLo;sÙkjlsok vkf.k fuyacu] cMrQhZ o lsosrqu dk<qu Vkd.ks bR;knh½ dkGkrhy iznkus fu;e 1981ps fu;e 71 e/khy rjrqnh uqlkj lsok fuo`Rrh ykHkkf’kok; loZ iz;kstukFkZ fuyacu dkyko/kh Eg.kqu ?kks”khr dj.;kr ;srks- 3½ cMrQhZpk dkyko/kh fnukad 27@04@2011 rs 05@10@2015 gk dkyko/kh lsok fuo`Rrh ykHkkf’kok; loZ iz;kstukFkZ lsosr O;rhr u dsysyk ¼lsokckg;½ dkyko/kh Eg.kqu lacks/k.;kr ;sr vkgs- Petitioner being aggrieved by the said order of denial of the benefits for the period from 10.12.1996 to 26.04.2011 and 27.04.2011 to 05.10.2015 919-WP-4186-2020.odt 2 of 5 filed complaint before the Industrial Court alleging that there is failure on the part of employer to implement on award agreement and settlement. It was contended by the petitioner-complainant that he was entitled for all the benefits once there is acquittal recorded by this Court on the charges framed against him. 3. Learned Industrial Court dismissed the complaint with observations that on on 06.10.2015, order of acquittal came to be passed however complainant reported duty on 31.03.2016 and, therefore, it is held that the order dated 28.03.2016 is not illegal. Being aggrieved by the said order, present petition. 4. Learned counsel for the petitioner submits that the present case is covered by the judgment of the Division Bench of this Court in case of Baban Shriram Wafare vs. Zilla Parishad, Ahmednagar 2002 (3) Mh.L.J. 390 wherein it is held that when there is termination of service on account of conviction, on acquittal, the employees entitled for benefit of continuity of service. He also placed reliance on the judgment of Hon’ble Supreme Court in case of Deputy Director of Collegiate Education (Administration), Madras vs. S. Nagoor Meera (1995) 3 SCC 377. 919-WP-4186-2020.odt 3 of 5 5. Learned counsel for Zilla Parishad supported the impugned order. 6. There is no dispute about the fact that no inquiry was conducted by Zilla Parishad against the petitioner before his dismissal from service. Admittedly, he was dismissed on the basis of conviction being recorded against him. Further, admittedly, this Court in Criminal Appeal No. 56/2002 has acquitted the petitioner from the charges. Thus, now question arises as to whether it was open for Zilla Parishad to deny any benefit to the petitioner on his reinstatement. Division Bench of this Court while appreciating the provisions of the Maharashtra Zilla Parishad District Services (Discipline and Appeal) Rules, 1964, has held that there is no provision which enables the Zilla Parishad to deny the benefits on reinstatement in case where the reinstatement has been granted on acquittal of the employees. This judgment therefore, squarely applies to the present case. 7. The Industrial Court has committed error in dismissing the complaint with observation that in spite of order dated 06.10.2015 passed by this Court acquitting the petitioner, he join duty on 31.03.2016 i.e., on the date of his superannuation. The Industrial Court however has ignored that fact that in the order passed by Chief Executive Officer (for short “CEO”), Zilla Parishad, Aurangabad dated 28.03.2016, all benefits from 06.10.2015 to the 919-WP-4186-2020.odt 4 of 5 actual reinstatement was granted. Thus, this could not have become a reason for dismissing the complaint. Suffice it to say that the present case is covered by the Judgment of Division Bench cited supra. 8. As a result of this, impugned order cannot sustain. Clause No. 2 by the impugned order cannot be sustained. Complaint ought to have been allowed by the Industrial Court by setting aside of Clause No. 2 and 3 of the order dated 28.03.2016, passed by CEO, Aurangabad. 9. Consequently, petition stands allowed in terms of Prayer Clause “C to E”. (R. M. JOSHI, J.) bsj 919-WP-4186-2020.odt 5 of 5