PANDURANG SITARAM JADHAV Vs. STATE OF MAHARASHTRA

JUDGEMENT

(1.) We are faced with eleven appeals filed by eleven daily wage workers of the Regional Dairy at Konkan, Maharashtra who claim permanency of their status.

(2.) The appellants filed complaints before the Industrial Court, Maharashtra at Kolhapur under Section 28 read with Items 5,6 and 9 of Schedule IV of the Maharashtra Recognition of Trade Unions & Prevention of Unfair Labour Practices Act, 1971 (hereinafter referred to as 'the said Act') claiming that they had been working with the respondent for periods more than 240 days continuously over a long period of time and have not been given regular status. The status of these complainants is set out in the judgment of the Tribunal itself and would show the position qua these appellants:

(3.) The complaints in the case were filed as noticed above, in the year 2001 though these complainants had been working from the year 1983 onwards and last of such person had started working in the year 1987. In terms of the order of the Tribunal dated 28.4.2004 these complaints were allowed. It was noticed that the appellants were being denied the benefits of permanency including yearly increments, bonus, provident fund, retirement benefits etc. as were admissible to the regular employees. The plea of the respondent/State of the absence of any sanctioned posts was noticed as also the ban on recruitment by the State Government. But the permanency was granted considering that the appellants were not new appointees and had been working even as on that date for the last 12 to 20 years. It was thus, felt that the responsibility lay on the respondent to send proposal to the Government for sanction of the posts. The fact that these persons had continued as daily rated employees for years together itself showed, it was held, that there was requirement of permanent posts and this methodology could not be utilized to deprive the appellants of the benefits of permanency.