CHIMA SHRAVAN SHINDE Vs. M V PATIL

JUDGEMENT

(1.) This writ petition under Article 227 of the Constitution of India impugns an order dated 10th January, 1980, of the First Labour Court, Pune, made in Application (IDA/LCP) No. 262 of 1977 dismissing the Application. The Application was made under Section 33-C(2) of the Industrial Disputes Act, 1947 (hereinafter referred to as 'the Act).

(2.) The petitioners were working in the Building and Communication Department, Public Works Division in Khed Sub-Division, deployed on the work in connection with Shirur-Bhima Shankar Road, Pune, as daily rated workers. They made an Application to the Labour Court alleging that they were entitled to the benefits under the settlement dated 20th July, 1967, between the Building, Communication and Irrigation Department of the Government of Maharashtra and the Trade Unions representing the workmen of the said Department. It was alleged there in that the said settlement such of the workmen who had put in continuous service of five years on the daily rated wages were entitled to have the posts held by them converted into posts of Regular Temporary Establishment and that they were entitled to be appointed on such converted posts and paid pay, allowance and consequent benefits thereupon. In the Schedule to the Application, the petitioners indicated that they were entitled to be placed on the converted posts with effect from 16th December, 1974, in the case of petitioners 1 to 4 and, from 16th April, 1976, in the case of 5th Petitioner. They also claimed the difference of the pay and allowances which they were entitled as amounting to the total sum of Rs. 14,072/-. The application was opposed by the Employer principally on the ground that each of the concerned workman had not put in five years continuous service as each of them had not rendered 240 days of actual working in the concerned years. This contention was accepted by the Labour Court which dismissed the Application by its order dated 10th January, 1980. Hence, the petition challenging the said order of the Labour Court.

(3.) Initially, the Registry raised an objection that there was no Vakalatnama filed by the learned Advocate on record for petitioner No. 3. On her application, petitioner No. 3 was transposed as Respondent No. 3 and, for failure to serve the Respondent No. 3, the registration of the petition stands refused as against the Third Respondent by the order of the Additional Registrar dated 1.4.1993. Thus, currently we are left with the cases only of petitioners 1, 2, 4 and 5.