DAMODHAR Vs. DEPUTY ENGINEER

JUDGEMENT

(1.) These petitions by workmen are directed against judgment rendered by learned Member, Industrial Court, Akola dismissing the complaint of unfair labour practice. The petitioners No. 1 and 2 in Petition No. 360 of 2002 Damodhar (Damu) Gawande and Ramrao Deshmukh were complainant Nos. 1 and 3 in Complaint ULP No. 3/1988 before learned Member Industrial Court and Petitioner Jagdeo Wankhede in Writ Petition No. 4 of 2002 was complainant No. 2 in the said complaint. According to the learned Counsel for the petitioners, complainant Nos. 4 to 9 in the said complaint had been granted permanency and therefore, their grievances were redressed.

(2.) The respondent No. 1 employer, filed reply admitting that the petitioners were working as watchmen on daily wages under a Government scheme. Other complainants Nos. 4, 5, 8 and 9 were stated to be working as helpers and Hand Pump Repairers. Complainant No. 6 was stated to have left the job. It was stated that the services of the petitioners in these petitions were terminated by the respondent. The petitioners challenged the said termination before Labour Court and the petitioners were working in terms of the interim orders passed by the said Court.

(3.) According to respondent No. 1, against whom the complaint had been led, it was only a supervising and implementing agency, and since the petitioners were working as watchmen under the Government scheme, the Government was necessary party. Respondent No. 1 could not make petitioners permanent unless Government approved such an action. Respondent No. 1 Stated that it had already approached Government for providing benefits of permanency to the petitioners, but had not received any clearance from the Government. It was also stated that the petitioners ought to have approached Maharashtra Administrative Tribunal, since they were working under the Government scheme.