STATE OF MAHARASHTRA Vs. MACHINDRA HARIMAN THAKARE

JUDGEMENT

(1.) These four petitions are filed by the State Government through the Conservator of Forest challenging the Judgment and Order dtd. 19/11/2015 passed by the Judge, First Labour Court, Nashik allowing the Complaints filed by the Respondents and directing their reinstatement on original posts as daily wagers with continuity of service and full back wages with effect from 1/1/2006. Petitioners unsuccessfully tested the decisions of Labour Court before the Industrial Court. However, Petitioners' Revision Applications have been rejected by the Industrial Court by Judgments and Orders dtd. 27/9/2017, which are also subject matter of challenge in the present petitions.

(2.) Facts of the case, in brief, are that Respondents came to be engaged as labourers on daily wage basis during various years ranging between 1994 to 1997 by the Forest Department. They performed various duties and responsibilities as per the directions of Range Forest Officer, Forest Guard, Ranger, etc. It is the case of Respondents that their services were orally terminated from 1/1/2006 onwards on account of Complaints filed by them seeking regularisation of their services. Respondents therefore, approached Labour Court, Nashik by filing Complaints under provisions of Sec. 28 of the Maharashtra Recognition of Trade Unions and Prevention of Unfair Labour Practices Act, 1971 ('MRTU and PULP Act'). The Labour Court passed the Judgment and Order dtd. 19/11/2011 allowing the Complaints directing the Petitioners to reinstate the Respondents on their original posts as daily wagers with continuity of service with full backwages with effect from 1/1/2006. Petitioners challenged the Judgment and Order dtd. 19/11/2015 of the Labour Court by filing Revision Applications before the Industrial Court, Nashik. However, by Judgment and Order dtd. 27/9/2017, the Industrial Court rejected the Revisions preferred by the Petitioners. Accordingly, Petitioners have filed the present petitions challenging the decisions of the Labour Court and Industrial Court.

(3.) Mr. Thorat, the learned AGP appearing for Petitioner-State would assail the orders passed by the Labour Court and Industrial Court by submitting that Respondents were engaged under the Employment Guarantee Scheme (EGS) and that, therefore, there was no employer-employee relationship between the State Government and the Respondents. That, the work allotted under EGS is towards fulfillment of State's obligations under the provisions of the Maharashtra Employment Guarantee Act, 1977 (EG Act, 1977) and that such engagement does not create employeremployee relationship. He would further submit that Forest Department is not an industry and therefore, the Labour Court did not have jurisdiction to entertain the complaints filed by the Respondents. In support of his contentions, he would rely upon the Judgment of the Apex Court in State of Gujrat Vs. Pratamsingh Narshinh Parmar,(2001) 9 SCC 713. He would also rely upon the Judgment of the Single Judge of this Court in Chief Conservator of Forests (Territorial), Nagpur Vs. Ashikque s/o Jabbar Sheikh,WP 3967 of 2006, decided on 9/3/2012. He would also submit that the Plantation department is otherwise not an 'industry'.