MAHESANA DISTRICT GENERAL ASSN Vs. DEPUTY PRESERVATION OFFICER

JUDGEMENT

(1.) The petitioner-Mehsana District General Association has preferred this petition for various reliefs, interalia, for directing the respondent-State and its officers to treat the members of the petitioner-Association as regular permanent workmen of the Forest Reservation Department and to grant all benefits which are being given to regularly appointed Watchman and Gardner as per service rules of the Government like seniority, promotion, benefit of leave rules, bonus, overtime etc. It is also prayed that the respondent-State may be directed to pay the arrears of salary and other benefits to the members of the petitioner-Association calculated from the date of initial appointment and also to direct the Labour Officer to take effective steps to to stop unfair labour practice adopted by the respondent-State and to further direct the respondent-State to comply with the statutory provisions of the Industrial Disputes Act and Minimum Wages Act etc. The petitioners have also claimed that all the members of the association be paid similar time scales which are being paid to the regularly appointed Watchman and Gardner.

(2.) Initially notice was issued in this petition and statusquo regarding service conditions was ordered as per order dated 1.5.91. Thereafter, on 17.7.91 when the petition came to be admitted the ad interim relief was refused. It does not come on record as to whether the present petitioners are as on today working with the respondent-department or not. However, on behalf of the respondents affidavit in reply has been filed by one Mr.K.A.Pandya, Assistant Conservator of Forests contending, interalia, that the petitioner or its members have also approached the concerned labour court and therefore this petition is not maintainable. It is also contended by the respondents that the engagement of members of the petitioner association was as daily wage labourers. In para 10 of the affidavit in reply it has been mentioned as under:

(3.) There is no affidavit in rejoinder filed by the petitioner to the aforesaid affidavit in reply filed by the State Government. Therefore matter is required to be examined from that angle.