LAWS(BOM)-1991-7-17

RATNAGIRI MUNICIPAL COUNCIL Vs. HARISHCHANDRA SHANKAR PAWAR

Decided On July 12, 1991
RATNAGIRI MUNICIPAL COUNCIL Appellant
V/S
HARISHCHANDRA SHANKAR PAWAR Respondents

JUDGEMENT

(1.) THESE Writ Petitions under Article 227 of the Constitution of India impugn an Order of the Industrial Court, Kolhapur, dated July 12, 1991, made in Complaint (ULP) Nos. 198 to 224 of 1989 and 269 of 1989 under the provisions of the Maharashtra Recognition of Trade Unions and Prevention of Unfair Labour Practices Act, 1971 (hereinafter referred to as "the Act" ).

(2.) THE concerned workmen of the Petitioner-Municipal Council had moved the Industrial Court, Kolhapur, by their complaints alleging an unfair labour practice, inter alia, within the meaning of item 6 of Schedule IV of the Act on the ground that they were continued as temporary employees for years together with a view to deprive them of the status and benefits of permanency. After recording the evidence, the Indistrial Court was satisfied that it was factually so. Apart from the Ratangiri Municipal Council, the State of Maharashtra was also impleaded as a party Respondent to the Complaints. By the impugned order, the Industrial Court has declared that the Petitionelr-Municipal Council had engaged in unfair labour practice within item 6 of Schedule IV of the Act, and directed it to make permanent all the complainants from the respective dates of their complaints by complying with all the necessary requirements. It also declared that the complainants were entitled to the benefits of permanency from the respective dates of their complaints.

(3.) THE Petitioner-Municipal Council has impunged the Order of the Industrial Court only on the ground that, under the provisions of the Maharashtra Municipalities Act, the power of sanctioning permanent posts of the requisite type is vested in the Director of Municipal Administration without whose sanction they could not have created sufficient permanent posts in which the Original Complainant-workmnen could have been employed. The petitioner-Municipal Council does not deny that, as correctly found by the Industrial Court, all the concerned workmen were working from 1982 onwards on the work of water supply, which is work of a perennial nature, and which the Municipal Council is required to carry on.