BHANUDAS GOVIND BAGLE Vs. EXECUTIVE ENGINEER

JUDGEMENT

(1.) ALL these writ petitions have been filed by the petitioners who, at the relevant time, were working as Muster Assistants with Respondent No. 1, the Executive Engineer, Minor Irrigation Division, dhule against the order of the Industrial Court at Nasik dated 2-11-1987 thereby dismissing 54 complaints of the workmen, including that of the ten petitioners herein, ot unfair labour practice by the respondents under items 5, 6, 9 and 10 of Schedule IV to the ("mrtu and PULP Act,) 1971" act, 1971.

(2.) THE petitioners were employed by the Executive Engineer, Irrigation division Dhule as Muster Assistants with effect from 1-3-1981 at different places of work carried out under the Employment Guarantee Scheme. The ten petitioners and 44 other workmen filed complaints of unfair labour practice under Items 5, 6, 7, 9 and 10 of Schedule IV of the Act with the industrial Court at Nasik. The case of the petitioners was that prior to 1-3-1981 they were appointed as road-clerks or mestries on regular pay scales of Rs. 260 (Clerks) or of Rs. 205 (Mestries ). However, they were later reverted by the Respondent No. 1 to the post of Muster Assistants on a consolidated pay of Rs. 300. The petitioners contended that they had put in more than 5 years of service and were entitled to be brought on converted regular temporary ("c. R. T. ") establishment as per recommen dation of Kalelkar Award which was accepted by the Government. Instead, they were reverted to the lower post in breach of the said award. It was further stated that the Government had issued a circular of 16-8-1982 to the effect that the employees who had worked during the period of strike should be absorbed in service. Inspite of that and even though there were vacancies, the petitioners were not absorbed in regular cadre but some others were taken in those vacancies. It was further contended that the Muster Assistants had to do the job similar to the job done or allotted to the muster-clerks or road-clearks or mestries. It was, therefore, unfair to pay Rs. 300 p. m. to the Muster Assistants as against Rs. 1,000 p. m. paid to road muster clerks or mestries etc. Lastly, it was stated that the petitioners had submitted representations to the respondent No. 1 the last of which was sent on 27-10-1986 The respondent no. 1 having failed to respond complaints were filed before the Industrial court. On the basis of the above alleged representation it was contended that the complaints of the petitioners against their employment as Muster assistants with effect from 1-3-1981 were not barred by limitation. On the above facts it was alleged that Respondent No. 1 had indulged in unfair labour practices under Items 5, 6, 9 and 10 of Schedule IV to the MRTU and pulp Act.

(3.) THE Respondent No. 1 Opposed the complaints by filing written statements in each of the complaints on 24-2-1987. The grounds of objection were the same in all the written statements It was pointed out that the provisions of the MRTU and PULP Act were not applicable in the case of the petitioners who were given work on employment guaran. ee scheme under which the Government provides work to the unemployed individuals whenever there is a demand It was stated that the petitioners were not covered by Kalelkar Award. It was also stated that there were no posts of Muster Clerks or road clerks in the Employment Guarantee scheme and, therefore, the Government had issued circulars for appointment of Muster Assistants. It was also stated that there was no similarity in the duties assigned to a road clerk or muster clerk and the muster assistant. Therefore, the principle of equal wages for equal work had no application. It was also contended that the complaints were barred by limitation under Section 28 (1) of the MRTU and PULP Act, 1971.