SHRIRAMPUR MUNICIPAL COUNCIL Vs. V K BARDE

JUDGEMENT

(1.) Petitioner before this Court in both the matters is a local body constituted under the Maharashtra Municipal Councils, Nagar Panchayats & Industrial Townships Act, 1965 ( hereinafter referred to as 1965 Act) while the Trade Union of its workmen are the Respondents. Basic challenge in the 1992 petition filed under Article 226 of the Constitution of India is to award-II dated 8/10/1987 delivered by Industrial Tribunal, Ahmadnagar in Ref.(IT) 6 of 1984 with prayer to quash relief granted in relation to demand 1,2 & 4. The reference was made by State of Maharashtra under Section 12(5) of the Industrial Disputes Act, 1947 ie IDA hereafter. Demand No. 1 is about increase in sanctioned posts on establishment schedule of the Petitioner. Demand No. 2 is to grant permanency to all those who have put in more than 180 days work with consequential benefits like pay-scales, D.A. etc & to continue to confer permanency in future on all workmen completing that period. By demand No. 4 the Union sought wages per day calculated by dividing the salaried of permanent staff by 26 ie at 1/26 by invoking the concept of equal pay for equal work.

(2.) In W.P. 1017/1995, the employer Municipal Council has assailed the interim order passed on 23/1/1995 under provisions of Section 30(2) of the Maharashtra Recognition Of Trade Unions & Prevention Of Unfair Labour Practices Act,1971--stated as ULP Act hereafter. By that order, the Industrial Court at Ahmadnagar has directed to pay wages to 108 workmen in schedules A,B & C appended to Complt. ULP 391 of 1994 filed before it by following the principle of equal pay for equal work at 1/26th of the permanent workmen. Main complaint is under Section 28(1) read with items 5,9 & 10 of schedule IV of the ULP Act.

(3.) W.P. 3238 of 1992 is filed at principal bench of this Court where it was registered as WP 3348 of 1988. On 30-11-1988, the Division Bench of this Court noted that grant of permanency by Petitioner in obedience to the orders of Labour Court did not constitute violation of any government circular or decision or direction. Respondent State government was given time to controvert this legal position which appeared to be "fairly clear" to the division bench. Bench also noted that out of 198 workmen covered by the decision of labour court, about 110 were already given permanency from 4/6/1988 on their giving up the claims for period prior to it. It appears that on 7/12/1988 the division bench admitted the petition only on prayer "(aa)" which sought direction to state government to sanction additional posts as per impugned award & to take them on establishment schedule. Rule on other prayers was rejected by saying--"Not granted, regarding other prayers". On 12/10/1992, matter came to be transferred to this bench. On 26/8/1994, petition was allowed to be amended. It was thereafter found in October or November, 2003 that surviving subject matter pertained to domain of the division bench. Division Bench vide judgment dated 12/12/2003 disposed of the petition by directing Petitioner to regularise remaining workmen from 1/9/1988 with all consequential benefits like permanent workmen. A direction to pay difference in minimum wage & actual payment to others not regularised for the period from 4/6/1980 till 31/8/1988 was also issued. Retired workmen or legal representatives of deceased workmen were also declared entitled to these benefits. Their claims for compassionate employment were also directed to be disposed of according to policy governing it. service rendered from 4/6/1980 was directed to be computed for all such purposes. Director of Municipal Administration & State Government were directed to dispose of proposal submitted by Petitioner municipal council for creation of posts within 3 months.