ZILLA ADHIKSHAK KRUSHI KHATE Vs. GENERAL SECRETARY

JUDGEMENT

(1.) Writ Petition No.8115 of 2005 is filed by Zilla Addhikshik, Krishi Khate, Sangli i.e. on behalf of the State Government of Maharashtra under the provisions of Article 227 of the Constitution of India to challenge the judgment and order dtd. 11/1/2005 passed by the learned Industrial Court, Kolhapur in Complaint (ULP) No.172 of 1988. By the said judgment, the learned Industrial Court allowed the Complaint filed by the Respondents (original complainant) and directed the Petitioners to grant permanency benefits to the employees mentioned in Annexure-A to the Complaint except two persons w.e.f. 1/7/1988.

(2.) Briefly stated, Complaint Exhibit 'U-1' and amended Complaint Exhibit 'U-21' was filed by the registered Trade Union on behalf of the employees whose names were stated in Annexure-A to the Complaint who were members of the Respondent - Union. The employees worked under the control of Petitioner Nos.1 and 2 and were engaged in process of preparing fruit plants, tree plants, vegetable plants, plantation activity of various varieties of plants viz. coconut, lemon, mango etc. taking care of mother trees, maintaining the plants, watering them etc. Petitioners used to sell these plants and earn profit on the same. The members of the Union were engaged to work on 30 acres piece of land situated at village Kupwad, Taluka - Miraj, District - Sangli for the aforesaid activity. Apart from the members of the Respondent - Union whose names were appended in Annexure-A to the original Complaint, Petitioners also engaged permanent employees for the same work / activity who were duly paid all benefits of permanency. However, members of the Respondent - Union whose names are appended in Annexure-A to the original Complaint were continued to be engaged by the Petitioners as temporary employees for years together, year after year, without giving them the benefit of permanency namely pay-scale, dearness allowance, leave facility, allowances etc. Respondent - Union therefore filed the original Complaint alleging unfair labour practice within the meaning of Item Nos. 5, 6, 9 and 10 of Schedule IV of the Maharashtra Recognition of Trade Unions and Prevention of Unfair Labour Practices Act, 1971 (for short "MRTU and PULP Act").

(3.) Mr. Kankal, learned AGP appearing on behalf of the Petitioners has taken me through the impugned judgment and order and would contend that none of the members of the Respondent - Union have completed 240 days for service in the employment of the Petitioner at Kupwad nursery. He would submit that in the written statement filed before the learned Industrial Court a specific averment was made to the effect that there were no sanctioned posts available for confirming appointment of these members of the Respondent - Union as permanent employees, despite which the learned Industrial Court directed the Petitioners to employ them as permanent employees. He would submit that the Court has no jurisdiction and power to direct creation of permanent posts in this manner and it is the sole function of the Executive depending upon various other factors. He would submit that the members of the Respondent - Union whose names are appearing in Annexure-A to the original Complaint were admittedly employed as temporary daily wages as seasonal workers and therefore, they cannot seek permanency merely because they have been continued in service for a long time. He would submit that these workers were neither recruited in accordance with recruitment rules nor sponsored by the employment exchange of the State Government and therefore their appointments cannot be regularized as permanent employees.