BHAGWAN TRIMBAK DEOKAR Vs. ZILLA PARISHAD AHMEDNAGAR

JUDGEMENT

(1.) The Writ Petition has been filed by the workers employed with the Zilla Parishad, Ahmednagar i.e. the respondent herein. Complaint (ULP) No. 141 of 1987 was filed under Items 5, 6, 9 and 10 of Schedule IV of the Maharashtra Recognition of Trade Unions and Prevention of Unfair Labour Practices Act, 1971 (hereinafter referred to as "the M.R.T.U. & P.U.L.P. Act") by the petitioners seeking permanency in service. The Industrial Court by its order dated 4th April, 1990 declared that the respondent had committed an unfair labour practice under Item 6 of Schedule IV of the M.R.T.U. & P.U.L.P. Act. The respondent was directed to accord the petitioners the status and benefits of permanency with effect from 1st July, 1987. The Industrial Court also directed the respondent to fix the salary and allowance of the petitioners in the time scale as per the posts held by them and to further pay them all monetary benefits, including bonus on or before 30th June, 1990, failing which, the Zilla Parishad was liable to pay the interest at the rate of 12% p.a. with effect from 1st April, 1990 till the realization of the amount.

(2.) Instead of abiding by the orders of the Industrial Court, an agreement was entered into by the respondent with the petitioners that an independent trust would be created by the respondent with the petitioners as employees of the trust. The agreement was to be in force from 1st October, 1990 to 30th September, 1995. The parties agreed that in the event the entire proposal was not implemented as scheduled, the petitioners would be reverted as permanent employees of the Zilla Parishad. It appears that the application for registration of the trust was rejected by the Assistant Charity Commissioner, and therefore, the agreement between the parties was not implemented. Complaint (ULP) No. 219 of 1996 was preferred by the petitioners under item 9 of Schedule IV of the M.R.T.U. & P.U.L.P. Act in respect of the non implementation of the order passed in Complaint (ULP) No. 141 of 1987 on 27th January, 1992. The Industrial Court by its order dated 26th February, 2007 held that the respondent had committed an unfair labour practice and directed the respondent to implement the order.

(3.) This order of the Industrial Court was challenged by the respondent in Writ Petition No. 3162 of 2008 before this Court. A statement of the Counsel of the respondent was recorded on the basis of the communication received by him from the Chief Controller-cum-Accountant and Finance Officer, Zilla Parishad, Ahmednagar, that the petitioners, who were the respondents in that Petition, would be paid the pay scale and other benefits till they were in service. The Petition was disposed of in view of this statement.