GAJANAN RAMCHANDRA SHINDE Vs. REGISTRAR, SHIVAJI UNIVERSITY

JUDGEMENT

(1.) THOUGH the impugned orders are different, nevertheless both the petitions have been taken up for consideration together as common questions of law and facts arise. Except the dates of appointment of the petitioners, all other facts are similar. In Writ P etition No.2990 of 1995, petitioner Gajanan Ramchandra Shinde was appointed on 27th October, 1979 and petitioner Dilip Dattatray Milkant in Writ Petition No.2992 of 1995 was appointed by respondent no. 1 -University on 6th February, 1980. For the sake of brevity, I am referring to the facts in the case of Gajanan Ramchandra Shinde in Writ Petition No.2990 of 1995.

(2.) THE petitioner was employed on 27th October, 1979 in the services of respondent no.1 as Class -IV employee holding the post of Pump Operator. Since then he has been in continuous employment without any break. Initially, the petitioner 's employment was on daily wages of Rs.10/ - for ten years without any other benefits. The rate of daily wages was, thereafter, enhanced from time to time, and in 1989 when the complaint was filed he was getting Rs.60/ -. The petitioner was not given status of permanency, or any other benefit of regular employment including pay -scale. It is the case of the petitioner that the other permanent employees of Class IV were getting pay -scales of Rs.900 -1500 and total emolument to the tune of Rs.3000/ - per month.

(3.) THERE is no dispute that during pendency of the complaints filed by the petitioners, the State of Maharashtra sanctioned two posts of the Pump Operator on the establishment by Government Resolution dated 27th January, 1983. In view thereof, respondent no.1 University has filed an affidavit stating that since the Government has sanctioned the posts, it was ready to absorb the complainants in its service on permanent basis subject to the conditions laid down in standard code w.e.f. 7th May, 1994. On the basis of this statement, the Industrial Court granted status and privilege of permanency to the petitioners and as far as the complaints of the petitioners are concerned, they were dismissed holding that the respondent had not engaged in an unfair labour practice. It is thereafter respondent no.1 issued order on 27th January, 1995 conferring status of permanency on the petitioners and further granted privileges thereafter since creation of permanent post of pump operator.