Case Note & Summary
The petitioner, Municipal Council Karmala, challenged an order dated 27.3.1997 passed by the Industrial Court, Solapur, which disposed of a complaint based on a joint compromise pursis (Exh. CU-6) entered into by the then President of the Council (Respondent No.4) and the worker (Respondent No.1). The Council alleged that the President acted without authority, without any resolution by the Council, and in violation of the Maharashtra Municipalities Act, 1965 and the Maharashtra Municipalities (Compromise to Suits) Rules, 1967. The Council contended that no notice under Section 304 of the Act was given to the Council before filing the complaint, and the President abused his powers under Section 100 to enter into a compromise that sought to employ Respondent No.1 permanently, which only the Chief Officer could do under Section 76. The President also failed to conduct an inquiry or record reasons as required by the Compromise Rules. The Court, noting that the averments in the petition remained uncontroverted as the respondents did not appear, found that the President acted in derogation of the statutory provisions. The Court held that the compromise order was contrary to law and quashed the same, allowing the writ petition.
Headnote
A) Municipal Law - Compromise by President - Validity - Sections 58, 76, 100, 304 Maharashtra Municipalities Act, 1965 - The President of a Municipal Council entered into a compromise in a pending complaint without any resolution by the Council, without notice to the Council under Section 304, and without following the Compromise Rules, 1967. The Court held that the President acted beyond his powers and the compromise order is liable to be quashed. (Paras 1-3)
B) Municipal Law - Appointment Powers - Section 76 Maharashtra Municipalities Act, 1965 - The President sought to employ a worker permanently through compromise, but only the Chief Officer is competent to make appointments under Section 76. The President's action was ultra vires. (Para 2)
C) Municipal Law - Notice under Section 304 - Mandatory - Section 304 Maharashtra Municipalities Act, 1965 - The complaint was filed without giving any notice to the Council, which is mandatory under Section 304. The compromise order was passed in violation of this provision. (Para 2)
Issue of Consideration
Whether the President of a Municipal Council can enter into a compromise in a pending complaint without following the mandatory provisions of the Maharashtra Municipalities Act, 1965 and the Maharashtra Municipalities (Compromise to Suits) Rules, 1967, and whether such compromise is binding on the Council.
Final Decision
The Court allowed the writ petition and quashed the impugned order dated 27.3.1997 passed by the Industrial Court, Solapur.
Law Points
- Compromise by President without Council resolution is invalid
- President cannot make appointments under Section 76
- Notice under Section 304 is mandatory
- Compromise Rules 1967 require inquiry and reasons
Case Details
2010 LawText (BOM) (04) 32
Writ Petition No.2431 of 1998
Mr. S.S. Patwardhan for the Petitioner
Municipal Council, Karmala, Through its Chief Officer
Hanumant Sudam Jadhav, The President Municipal Council Karmala, The Industrial Court Solapur, Dattatraya Pandurang Jagtap
Subscribe to unlock Case Details (Citation, Judge, Date & more)
Subscribe Now
Nature of Litigation
Writ Petition challenging an order of the Industrial Court disposing of a complaint based on a compromise entered into by the President of the Municipal Council.
Remedy Sought
The petitioner Municipal Council sought quashing of the compromise order dated 27.3.1997 passed by the Industrial Court, Solapur.
Filing Reason
The President of the Council entered into a compromise without authority, without Council resolution, without notice under Section 304, and in violation of the Compromise Rules, 1967.
Previous Decisions
The Industrial Court, Solapur passed the impugned order dated 27.3.1997 disposing of the complaint in view of the joint compromise pursis.
Issues
Whether the President of a Municipal Council can enter into a compromise without a resolution by the Council?
Whether the compromise order is valid when no notice under Section 304 of the Maharashtra Municipalities Act, 1965 was given?
Whether the President can make appointments in violation of Section 76 of the Act?
Submissions/Arguments
The petitioner argued that the compromise order is contrary to law, justice and equity.
The petitioner argued that no notice under Section 304 of the Maharashtra Municipalities Act, 1965 was given to the Council before filing the complaint.
The petitioner argued that the President abused his powers under Section 100 and acted in derogation of the Compromise Rules, 1967.
The petitioner argued that the President sought to employ the worker permanently, which only the Chief Officer can do under Section 76.
The petitioner argued that the President failed to conduct an inquiry or record reasons as required by the Compromise Rules.
Ratio Decidendi
The President of a Municipal Council cannot enter into a compromise in a pending complaint without a resolution by the Council, without giving notice under Section 304 of the Maharashtra Municipalities Act, 1965, and without following the Maharashtra Municipalities (Compromise to Suits) Rules, 1967. Such a compromise is ultra vires and not binding on the Council.
Judgment Excerpts
The petitioner Municipal Council Karmala (for short called as 'the Council'), has challenged in number of Writ Petitions the order dated 27.3.1997 and similar such orders, passed by the Industrial Court, Solapur by which the complaints were disposed of in view of the joint compromise pursis at exh CU-6 whereby the parties have settled the matter out of Court.
The averments made in this petition, basically against the then President of the Council and respective workers employed, remained un-controverted though they were made party respondents in the petitions.
Procedural History
The Industrial Court, Solapur passed the impugned order dated 27.3.1997 disposing of the complaint based on a joint compromise. The petitioner Municipal Council filed Writ Petition No.2431 of 1998 before the Bombay High Court challenging the order. The High Court heard the matter and delivered judgment on 6.4.2010.
Acts & Sections
- Maharashtra Municipalities Act, 1965: 58, 76, 100, 304
- Maharashtra Municipalities (Compromise to Suits) Rules, 1967:
