ARUN KUNTE Vs. STATE OF MAHARASHTRA

JUDGEMENT

(1.) The petitioner is aggrieved by the impugned order dated 16th June 1995 passed by the Industrial Court, Kolhapur in Revision Application No. 190 of 1992 and 211 of 1992 filed by both the parties, as both the parties were aggrieved by the order of the labour court dated 15th Oct. 1992 granting the petitioner employment as a fresh employee without back-wages. The petitioner was aggrieved by the order of fresh employment and order of denial of back-wages while the respondent, State Government was aggrieved by the order of employing the petitioner as a fresh employee.

(2.) The petitioner was terminated from the service in Sept. 1991 on the ground that there was no work available. The petitioner challenged the said oral termination order by filing a complaint of unfair labour practise under Items 1 (a), (b), (d), and (f) of Schedule IV of the M.R.T.U. & PULP Act. The labour court found from the record that the petitioner was not employed from 1972 as falsely claimed by him in his complaint. The labour court also found that he was employed from 1984 onwards. The labour court also found that as and when work was available he was given work and he had not completed continuous period of 240 days in any year. It was the case of the Government that from project to project as and when the work was available work was given to such Mile Mazdoors and that they were never continuously employed as no work was available continuously and throughout the year. The State Government denied the allegations of unfair labour practise made against the respondents. The Labour court, however, found that work was available and the petitioner was terminated from employment for patently false reasons as work was available and he was not given work. The said finding of the labour court appears to be based on a fact that the seniority list was not produced by the department before the labour court and that it was the case of the petitioner before the labour court that some workers were still in employment by virtue of the orders passed by the court by way of interim relief. According to the labour court, continuous and permanent work was available with some break in rainy season etc. but since work was available, the termination of the petitioner was held to be for patently false reasons. The labour court by over-stretching the facts appears to have developed sympathy and mercy for the petitioner and, therefore, granted fresh employment and directed the department to give him fresh employment but the labour court was careful in not burdening the State by awarding any back-wages.

(3.) In my opinion, the order of the labour court was fair enough to provide some livelihood to the unemployed petitioner. The labour court had taken a sympathetic view and had directed the department to employ him as fresh employee without continuity of service and back-wages. However, both were aggrieved by the said order and filed revision application in the industrial court. The industrial court, in my opinion, has rightly approached the issue and has dismissed the revision application filed by the petitioner employee claiming reinstatement with full back-wages and allowing the revision filed by the State Government. The industrial court has dismissed the complaint I do not find any fault with the order of the industrial court. At the time of admission of the above petition, on 18th Oct. 1995 Rule was granted and pending hearing and final disposal of the petition, the following order was passed:-