SUPRINTENDING ENGINEER Vs. DATTATRAYA MAHADEO BADARKHE

JUDGEMENT

(1.) By this Writ Petition under Articles 226 and 227 of the Constitution of India, the petitioner Nos. 1 and 2 who are officers of the erstwhile Maharashtra State Electricity Board, are challenging the order dated 22-12-1993, passed by the Industrial Court, in Revision ULP No. 2/1987, challenging the order dt. 30-10-1986 passed by the Labour Court in ULPA complaint Case No. 31/1985. This order dated 30-10-1986 of Labour Court is in favour of the petitioners.

(2.) The respondent Nos. 1 to 3 filed ULPA Complaint No. 31/1985 before labour Court, challenging their termination from service orally on date 5-3-1985. Their contention was that they were appointed as Apprentice by order dt. 15-5-1980 and they were provided work on Nominal Muster Roll (NMR) on temporary establishment as skilled worker by order dated 8-4-1982. They relied upon the agreement between the Union of Employees and Management, which provided that NMR workers who have worked for 5 years should be regularized as and when vacancies arose. Their contention that there was no compliance of provisions of section 25 (N) of the Industrial Disputes Act, and also of Rule 81 of the Industrial Disputes Central Rules. The petitioner employer disputed this and contended that the provisions of law have been complied with. The Labour Court dismissed the complaint observing that there was no unfair labour practice. The respondent Nos. 1 to 3 approached Industrial Court, by filing Revision under section 44 of the MRTU and PULP Act. The Industrial Court found that the retrenchment compensation arrived at was not proper because the period of service of respondents No. 1 to 3 as apprentice was not taken into account while calculating it. Hence, the Industrial Court has partly allowed the revision and has directed the petitioners to pay compensation to these respondents in accordance with the provisions of section 25-N (b) of the Industrial Disputes Act, for the period from 15-5-1980 to 7-4-1982 with interest @ 9% pa. since 5-3-1985 till the entire payment. The present petition has been admitted on 5-4-1987 and on 26-6-2002, this Court has granted interim relief in terms of prayer clause (iii). The said stay is operating even today.

(3.) I have heard Advocate R. E. Moharir, for petitioners and learned AGP shri Loney, for respondent Nos. 4 and 5, nobody appears for respondent No. 1 to 3, though served.