Judgment:
Dhamadhikari B.P., J.
1. Heard Advocate Gordey for petitioner and A.G.P. for respondent No. 1 to 3.
Short grievance made by Advocate Gordey is that petitioner who validly entered the service in 1986 as Field Worker could have been regularized as per scheme of circular dated 30.1.1992 at Exhibit 32 and circular dated 9.2.1988 he had completed M.P.W. Training. He points out that employees admittedly junior to him were sent for such training in 1994, but petitioner was never deputed for such training. Because of this the petitioner approached the Industrial Court at Yavatmal pointing out that denial by respondents to send him to training by contending that he was overage amounted to unfair labour practice. He argues that relevance of age of petitioner in the process has been lost sight of by the Industrial Court. According to him when petitioner was already a seasonal worker or temporary worker and his case was to be considered for regularization i.e. for grant of permanency, the question of age was totally irrelevant.
2. Learned A.G.P. on the other hand states that grievance before the Industrial Court was only about sending juniors to training and relevance of age of petitioner was not at all a dispute raised before Industrial Court. He further states that juniors of petitioner were forwarded in 1994, because they were within prescribed age limit. He further states that Industrial Court has found that government Resolution date 9.2.1988 was applicable to the bonded candidates who had already undergone MPW Training and petitioner had not undergone such training, hence he was not eligible for the benefit.
3. With the assistance of both the learned Counsel, I have perused the records of writ petition. Petitioner was admittedly more than 30 years of age when the circular dated 30.1.1992 came to be issued. It further appears that juniors mentioned by him were less than 30 years in 1994. However, then question as posed by Advocate Gordey is whether her such grant of permanency or regularization, the age of candidate already in government service has got any relevance. Though the issue is not raised in ULP complaint, in writ petition, the same is sought to be raised, though not in so many words. However, as the question is a question of law, I find that in writ petition same can be at lowed to be raised. But then question is what was the reason for Government to prescribe such age limit in its circular at Exhibit 32.
4. Learned A.G.P. has tried to show that earlier resolution dated 9.2.1988 also prescribes some age. As Government did not have any opportunity before Industrial Court, I find it proper to remand the matter back to Industrial Court with liberty to parties to amend their respective pleadings in this respect. It was never the specific case till today that he petitioner was a back door entrant. In these circumstances, leaving all questions open I find that the Industrial Court can be permitted to have a relook on entire controversy. Thus question about legality or otherwise of entry into service of present petitioner, the relevance of age limit prescribed and also the applicability of circular dated 30.1.1992 or 9.2.1988 to his case are left open.
5. The Industrial Court shall decide the ULP Complaint No. 464/ 1999 as early as possible and in any case by 31.8.2009. The parties shall continue to maintain status-quo as on today till 31.8.2009. The judgment dated 17.6.2003 delivered by Industrial Court in ULP Complaint No. 464/1999 is accordingly quashed and set aside. Rule made absolute in aforesaid terms. No costs.