SUDHIR R KOLI Vs. MAHARASHTRA POLLUTION CONTROL BOARD

JUDGEMENT

(1.) The Maharashtra Pollution Control Board has been constitution in pursuance of the provisions of the Water (Prevention and Control of Pollution) Act, 1974, in order to exercise the powers conferred upon it and perform the functions assigned to it by the Act. Sub-section (3) of section 12 of the Act lays down that subject to such Rules as may be made by the State Government, the Board may appoint such officers and employees as it considers necessary for the efficient performance of its functions. The Board is empowered by sub-section (3-A) of the same section to frame regulations for determining the method of recruitment and conditions of service, including the scales of pay of its officers. and employees. The regulations have to be approved by the State Government before they can take effect.

(2.) In the present case, the six petitioners before the Court were Date entry Operators on fixed term contracts during diverse period of time when computerization of the office of the Board was in its nascent stages. There is no dispute about the position that the regular procedure for recruitment was not followed when the petitioners came to be appointed on these fixed terms contracts. There were no sanctioned posts as such of Data Entry Operators, no advertisements were issued before recruiting the petitioners and no requisition was submitted to any Employment Exchange calling for the names of eligible candidates. The petitioners moved the Industrial Court on 28th august, 1999 seeking the status of permanent workmen upon the completion of 240 days service and for consequential benefits. The petitioners claimed that before they were given the last break in service in July, 1999, they had been engaged since January 1997, in the case of the first three petitioners and since May, August and November 1997 for the rest. According to the petitioners, they had been engaged on a contract basis under a sham and bogus arrangement and were given artificial breaks in service after the expiry of each fixed term. The petitioners, however, stated that they had been in the employment of the Board right from 1994.

(3.) In the reply that was filed by the respondent-Board, the claim by the petitioners to the conferment of permanency was disputed. The Board disputed that the petitioner were engaged since 1994. According to the Board, there were no sanctioned posts of Data Entry Operators on its establishment and the petitioners were taken on a contract basis in consultation with National Informatics Centre (NIC) , Mumbai, in order to co-ordinate computer related activities, to train the staff, to liaise with the Hardware Maintenance Agency and to interact with NIC for software development for the Board purely on a contract basis. Then again, it was stated, in July, 1999, the petitioners had been appointed temporarily in order to train newly appointed staff and that the Board was, therefore, under no obligation to confer permanency upon them.