SARVA SHRAMIK SANGH SANGLI Vs. STATE OF MAHARASHTRA

JUDGEMENT

(1.) BY this Petition, the Union Sarva Shramik Sang: and two workmen who are members of this Union, have sought to challenge the Award dated 21st May 1992 passed by the Labour Court, Sangli rejecting the Reference for reinstatement with continuity of service and full back wages and granting only retrenchment compensation to the workmen. The Petition has been filed on behalf of 163 workmen whose services had been terminated by Respondent nos. 1 and 2. All the 163 workmen had raised individual disputes and References had been made under Section 2 (s)of the Industrial Disputes Act, 1947 (hereinafter referred to as "the Act") for adjudication before the same Labour Court. By a common Award, the Labour Court has held that all the workmen are entitled to retrenchment compensation.

(2.) THE 163 workmen concerned were ail working with the State Government on different posts. They were employed to man 25 Lift Irrigation Schemes at Sangli. The State of Maharashtra i. e. Respondent No. 1 established a registered Company under the Companies Act known as the Irrigation Development Corporation of maharashtra Limited (hereinafter referred to as "the corporation" ). This Corporation Was incorporated on 29th December 1973. The Corporation introduced these schemes for which the 163 workmen were employed. The schemes were then transferred in June 1985 to the shetkari Sahakari Sakhar Karkhana Limited, Sangli (hereinafter referred to as "the Karkhana" ). The corporation was wound up on 30th September 1986 and it was decided to either absorb the workmen working on these Lift Irrigation Schemes or to terminate their services. Notices of termination were issued to the individual workman on 16th May 1985 by the second respondent. Immediately thereafter, Writ Petition no. 2376 of 1985 was filed by the Union, Petitioner No. 1 herein, in this Court. The relief sought by the Union in that Petition was that the Schemes for Irrigation should not be transferred to the Karkhana and that the services of the workmen who were working with the corporation should be protected. An affidavit was filed by one. R. K. Mohite, Executive Engineer, Sangli Irrigation division, Sangli in this Court in reply to the Writ petition stating that the workmen concerned" had been appointed by the Irrigation Department and that the irrigation Department was running the Scheme for and on behalf of the Corporation. All appointments of these workmen were made by the Irrigation Department and they were never workmen of the Corporation. In view of the affidavit filed, the Writ Petition was rejected. Special Leave Petition preferred against the Order passed in the Writ Petition met with the same fate as the Supreme Court recorded the fact that the workmen could have no grievance since they were workmen of the irrigation Department. While disposing of the Special leave Petition by its order dated 11th November 1986, the Apex Court observed that if the workmen concerned desire to seek any relief against the State of maharashtra, they were at liberty to do so through an appropriate legal remedy. Thereafter, individual disputes were raised by the 163 workmen and they were referred for adjudication before the Labour Court at sangli. After pleadings were filed, evidence was recorded before the Labour Court of some workmen and the officer of the State Government.

(3.) THE Labour Court did not accept the contention raised by the Respondents that the Reference was barred by the principles of res judicata. The Labour Court came to the conclusion that the Irrigation Department was an industry and, therefore, the Reference was maintainable. The Labour Court also found that the termination of services effected from 30th June 1985 was illegal and improper as it was not in accordance with section 25f of the Industrial Disputes Act, 1947 (hereinafter referred to as "the Act" ). However, as regards the breach of Section 25n, the Labour Court was of the view that since the premises in which the workmen were employed was not a factory and, therefore, not an industrial establishment defined under the Act, Section 25n was not attracted. The Labour, however, granted retrenchment compensation and directed the respondents to give a preference to all the workmen in the matter of employment, as and when work was available. The present Petition impugns this Award.