MAHARASHTRA STATE CO-OP COTTON GROWERS MARKETING FEDERATION LTD AND ORS Vs. MAHARASHTRA STATE CO-OP COTTON GROWERS MARKETING FEDERATION EMP UNION AND ORS

JUDGEMENT

(1.) By this writ petition under Article 227 of the Constitution, the Maharashtra State Cooperative Cotton Growers Marketing Federation Limited, a Society registered under the Maharashtra Co-operative Societies Act, 1960 (hereinafter referred to as the 'Petitioner Federation') takes exception to the judgment and order passed by the learned Member of the Industrial Court, Nagpur (second respondent) Complaint (ULPN) No. 316/90 on September 14, 1990, declaring that the petitioner Federation had engaged in unfair labour practices covered by Item Nos. 5, 6 and 9 of Schedule IV of the Maharashtra Recognition of Trade Unions and Prevention of Unfair Labour Practices Act, 1971 (hereinafter referred to as "MRTU & PULP ACT") and granting further consequential relief to the employees represented by the first respondent, Maharashtra State Cooperative Cotton Growers Marketing Federation Employees Union.

(2.) The relevant facts giving rise to this writ petition are as under:-

(3.) The first respondent-Union represents the employees belonging to Class III and Class IV cadres viz. the seasonal clerks, peons, watchmen etc. who were working in the Scheme and many of them from the very inception in the year 1971-72 continuously. Thus, according to the first respondent-Union, these employees had put in more than 16 to 17 years of service in the above said categories on the seasonal basis inasmuch as their appointments were made some time in the month of October/November when the collection of cotton crops started and were continued upto the end of April/May of the next year. It is the further case of the first respondent Union that while floating the petitioner Federation, the Government of Maharashtra had issued a letter dated September 6, 1984, by which the assets and liabilities of the old Federation were transferred to the petitioner Federation in respect of the monopoly of the cotton purchase scheme and thus the petitioner Federation was under all the liabilities of the old Federation in respect of the service conditions of the employees who are members of the first respondent-Union. It was the contention of the first respondent-Union that since the monopoly of the cotton purchase scheme was implemented on permanent basis for the last 19 to 20 years and also proposed to be continued hereafter, it was necessary to decide the fate and status of the employees in the scheme as they were treated as if casuals or temporary employees. However, their services were sought to be terminated with effect from April 30, 1990.