STATE OF MAHARASHTRA Vs. RAMA RANGNATH TAMBE

JUDGEMENT

(1.) THIS Writ Petition is filed, challenging the validity and legality of the Award passed in Reference (IDA) No. 25 of 1986 dated 20th November, 1990. The brief facts of the case are as under :-

(2.) THE respondent No. 1 herein filed Reference (IDA) No. 25 of 1986 before the Labour Court, praying therein to reinstatement, backwages and for continuation of service in the employment of petitioner as a watchman. It is the case of respondent No. 1 that he was appointed as a watchman at Rajuri to look after plantation of the trees and to protect said plants. He was appointed on 11th August, 1980 and he was removed from service on 1st May, 1983. It is the contention of the respondent No. 1 that when he was removed from service he was getting Rs. 150/- monthly salary. It is further contended that while removing the respondent No. 1 from the employment of the petitioners, no one month notice or compensation in lieu of notice was given, and therefore, the said action of the petitioners to remove the respondent No. 1 from the service without giving one month notice, or compensation in lieu of one months notice is illegal and incorrect. It is further case of the respondent No. 1 that when he was removed from the service no charge-sheet was issued, no departmental enquiry officer was appointed, no departmental enquiry was conducted, and by violating principles of natural justice, out of mala fide intentions by adopting illegal means and unlawfully he was removed from service by the petitioner No. 2. THErefore, it was prayed in the said Reference that the removal of the respondent No. 1 from the services of the petitioner is illegal, and therefore, petitioners should be reinstated in the service, and his service should be treated as continuous and he should be given backwages for the period for which he was removed from the services. It was also prayed that it should be declared that the respondent No. 1 is in continuous service of the petitioner and accordingly all benefits should be extended to the respondent No. 1. THE costs towards filing the Reference may be awarded to the complainant. It was also prayed that the complainant reserves his right to add, amend, the pleadings or delete the pleadings, if it is necessary .

(3.) THE learned A.G.P. appearing for the State submitted that the Labour Court has framed only two issues and had not framed the other necessary issues for its adjudication. It is further submitted that relying on the statement of the respondent No. 1, that he was worked for 362 to 365 days in each year, the Presiding Officer, Labour Court concluded that respondent No. 1 is entitled for continuity in the service, backwages and also for reinstatement. It is further argued that no opportunity to cross-examine the respondent No. 1 was given to the petitioners and merely relying on the testimony of respondent No. 1, the Labour Court allowed the Reference. It is further submitted that the respondent No. 1 was not appointed on any vacant regular post. He was appointed as Mazdoor, and his appointment was not made after following the due procedure. Hence, he cannot claim reinstatement and continuity in the service. He was taken as Mazdoor under the scheme, whenever the work is available. It is further submitted that the provisions of section 25-F of the Industrial Disputes Act are not attracted, and therefore, there was no question of compliance of provisions of said sections. THE learned A.G.P. invited my attention to the reported Judgment in the case of Anil Bapurao Kanse vs. Krishna Sahakari Sakhar Karkhana Ltd., and another, reported in AIR 1997 SC 2698 and submitted that, the Apex Court has taken a view in the said matter that the termination of persons on seasonal basis cannot be termed as a retrenchment within the meaning of section 2(oo), and they are not entitled for continuity of services. THE learned A.G.P. further placed reliance on reported Judgment of this Court in the case of THE Divisional Controller, M.S.R.T.C., Osmanabad vs. Maruti Bapurao Lokhande, reported in 2009(4) Mh.L.J. 869 = 2009(5) ALL MR 242 and submitted that in the said case this Court held principles enunciated in cases of Secretary, State of Karnataka vs. Umadevi, (2006), 4 SCC 1 and Mahboob Deepak vs. Nagar Panchayat, Gajrula, (2008) 1 SCC 575 could be utilised as guiding principles in respect of matters wherein orders of reinstatement or permanency are sought in view of the claim that the complainant had worked for more than 240 days in a year with a public body or corporation or instrumentality. THE learned A.G.P. further placed reliance on the reported Judgment of this Court in a case Pune Municipal Corporation and others vs. Dhannanjay Prabhakar Gokhale, reported in 2000(4) Mh.L.J. 66 and submitted that merely because an employee continued to render service for 240 days in a year, that by itself will not be sufficient for him to claim permanency in the post, unless he is able to establish that such a permanent post duly approved by the competent authority is vacant and the claimant is duly eligible for being appointed in such post. THE learned A.G.P. further placed reliance on the reported Judgment of the Hon'ble Supreme Court in a case Surendra Prasad Tewari vs. U. P. Rajya Krishi Utpadan Mandi Parishad and others, reported in 2007(1) ALL MR 461 and submitted that the persons employed on contractual basis though worked for years together, are not entitled to any right to be absorbed or made permanent in service. Relying on various Judgments and also on the basis of grounds taken in the petition, the learned A.G.P. would submit that this Writ Petition deserves to be allowed.