DIWAKAR MADHUKARRAO PANDE Vs. SHIVAJI EDUCATION SOCIETY

JUDGEMENT

(1.) Rule. Rule returnable forthwith. Heard finally by consent of the rival parties.

(2.) Being aggrieved by judgment and order dated 21.06.2011 passed by Presiding Officer, University and College Tribunal, Nagpur in Appeal No. N16/ 97, the petitioneroriginal appellant, has preferred the present petition.

(3.) The petitioner with a requisite qualification of 10th standard passed was appointed as Peon with effect from 31.07.1992 by respondent nos. 1 and 2Shri Shivaji Education Society, Amravati in its college at Paoni, Tq. Paoni, Dist. Bhandara. However, on 13.09.1997, with effect from 01.10.1997, the employer terminated his services. The employer had, however, retained the juniors to him in service by name; Mr. Bawankar, Mr. Raut and Mr. Chikhale. The employer, thus, breached the rule of 'last come first go' in violation of the provisions of section 25G of the Industrial Disputes Act (For short 'ID Act'). The employer also did not comply with the mandatory provisions of section 25F of the ID Act and due to violation of statutory provisions of Parliamentary law, it was deemed that the petitioner was in employment as usual. His retrenchment was illegal and bad in law. He, therefore, challenged his termination before the University and College Tribunal under section 59 of the Maharashtra University Act, 1994 by filing appeal. Respondent nos. 1 and 2 filed their reply and stated that the respondentSenior College is not an industry. The provisions of ID Act are not applicable. The procedure laid down under the ID Act was not required to be followed. The petitioner was a daily wager with effect from 13.07.1992 and could not be termed as a Peon or regularly appointed person, within the meaning of section 59 of the Act of 1994. The junior employees indicated by the petitioner are permanent employees but for Mr. Bawankar, who is also a daily wager like the petitioner. A daily wager cannot have any status of permanent employee as per the statutory provisions and standard Code. The respondents thus prayed for dismissal of the appeal.