ZILLA PARISHAD YAVATMAL Vs. AVINASH DEVIDAS DESHMUKH

JUDGEMENT

(1.) THE Zilla Parishad, Yavatmal has challenged the common order passed by the Industrial Court. Amrawati by which be finally allowed the three complaints made under the provisions of the maharashtra Recognition of Trade Unions and Prevention of Unfair Labour practices Act, 1971 bearing Nos. 279/93, 387/93 and 296/93.

(2.) THE Respondents 1 to 9 herein are the Engineering Diploma holders. Initially they joined as Junior Engineers in Building and Communication department (B and C Division), Yavatmal. Because of the Zero-budget policy of the State of Maharashtra in the year 1987-88 they were declared as surplus employees and their services came to be terminated on 31/5/1987. In fact, prior to that they had already rendered about 3-4 years of service. They went on hunger strike, moved the Government and probably as a result of this they were directed to be absorbed in Zilla Parishad, Yavatmal and accordingly, the petitioner Zilla Parishad absorbed the complainants from amongst several other Junior Engineers. There is a scheme called Mawahar rojgar Yojana' which was being implemented by the petitioner Zilla Parishad. There were some constructions works and the building activity in that scheme and, therefore, these respondents 1 to 9 who were selected from amongst the other candidates were sent to work in Jawahar Rojgar Yojana. Their appointment was made on 31/12/1990. Initially the appointment was only for six months. Since the said scheme was extended every year, the petitioner gave normal breaks to these persons by giving fresh appointment orders for duration of six months. In this manner, these respondents continued to work from 31/12/1990 till 31/5/1993. Last order was, however, issued for their appointment on 17/3/1993 wherein it was stated that their service would stand terminated with effect from 31/5/1993 as the Jawahar Rojgar Yojana was extended only till that date. Ultimately, the respondents were served with the termination orders dated 26/5/1993.

(3.) THESE termination orders were challenged by the respondents before the Industrial Court by filing the complaints under the provisions of section 28 of the Maharashtra Recognition of Trade Unions and Prevention of Unfair Labour Practices Act. Amongst other things, their contention was that they were 'workmen' within the meaning of Section 2 (s) of the Industrial disputes Act, 1947 and that in fact the termination orders were colourable exercise of powers and in fact though there was work available with the Zilla Parishad, the Zilla Parishad was unnecessarily terminating their services. They pointed out that the Zilla Parishad had demanded 9 candidates for filling up the posts of Junior Engineers under it and that itself showed that there was work available and yet they were being terminated illegally. Their contention was that they had continued to work for more than six years as Junior Engineers and were absorbed by the Zilla Parishad at the intervention of the Chief Minister and, therefore, it was not necessary for them to be selected by the Regional Selection Board for their permanent appointment. In this view of the matter, they claimed that the Zilla Parishad should not declare these posts to be vacant and should not call the fresh candidates from the regional Selection Board. They claimed that they had worked for more than 240 days and thus the provisions of Sections 25-F, 25-G and 25-H of the Industrial disputes Act wers attracted inasmuch as they were being retrenched with effect from 31-5-1993. In the complaint they sought the declaration that the last order of their appointment dated 17-3-1993 amounted to an unfair labour practice and they were liable to be declared as permanent employees. Along with the complaint, they also filed an application under the provisions of section 30 (2) of the Maharashtra Recognition of Trade Unions and prevention of Unfair Labour Practices Act, 1971 for interim relief and such interim relief was granted to them by the Industrial Court.