ICHALKARANJI MUNICIPAL COUNCIL Vs. PRAVEEN SHIVGONDA PATIL

JUDGEMENT

(1.) The Petitioner has approached this Court against the order of the Industrial Court dated 22.7.1998. By this order, the Industrial Court has allowed the complaint filed by Respondent No. 1 (hereinafter referred to as the 'respondent'). The Industrial Court has declared that the petitioner had committed an unfair labour practice under Items 6 and 9 of Schedule IV of the MRTU and PULP Act. The petitioner has been directed to make the respondent permanent in service and to give him consequential benefits of permanency. The respondent had enlisted his name with the employment exchange. The petitioner wanted to fill in vacancies which were available and therefore called for names from the employment exchange. The Respondent's name was submitted and after an interview he was selected to oversee the construction work in progress within the municipal limits. He was appointed on a work charged basis as a Deputy Engineer on the pay scale of Rs. 600 to Rs. 1150/ -. Since the respondent had worked for more than 3 years and he was not being made permanent in service he filed a complaint alleging unfair labour practices under Items 6, 9 and 10 of Schedule IV of the MRTU and PULP Act. In his complaint the respondent had stated that though he was designated as a Deputy Engineer he was a workman as defined under Section 2(s) of the Industrial Disputes Act. He pleaded inter alia that he had been appointed on 2.3.1987; had been working uninterruptedly with the petitioner since then; his service record was unblemished; he had been continued on a work charged basis instead of being confirmed in service. The respondent also pleaded that he was performing work of a permanent nature and that sufficient work was available for making him permanent. He has also pleaded that certain resolutions had been passed by the petitioner creating additional posts of Deputy Engineers. The respondent then contended that there were permanent vacant posts of Deputy Engineers available with the petitioner despite which he was not being made permanent in service. The respondents therefore pleaded that he was entitled to permanency and that the petitioner had indulged in unfair labour practices under Items 6, 9 and 10 of the Schedule IV.

(2.) In response, the petitioner filed a written statement in which it was contended that the respondent was not a workman as his duties were supervisory in nature. The petitioner further pleaded that the respondent was employed on a work charged basis and therefore had no right to permanency. The petitioner denied the contention of the respondent that he had been continued in service without being made permanent only to deprive him of the status and privileges of a permanent workman. The petitioner denied that the work performed by the respondent was permanent in nature. With regard to the allegation of the petitioner that the Municipal Council had passed a resolution creating additional posts of Deputy Engineers the petitioner has replied thus:

(3.) With respect to the respondent's contention that though permanent vacant posts of Deputy Engineers were available with the petitioner he had been denied permanency. The petitioner has replied thus: