UNIVERSITY OF MUMBAI Vs. S D PATEL

JUDGEMENT

(1.) This petition is directed against an order passed by the Industrial Court on 16th December, 1999 by which the complaint filed by the first respondent under Item 6 of Schedule IV of the Maharashtra Recognition of Trade Unions and Prevention of Unfair Labour Practices Act, 1971 was allowed and the petitioner was directed to make the first respondent a permanent employee in the post of Laboratory Attendant from the date of the passing of the order.

(2.) The first respondent was appointed as a Laboratory Attendant by the mumbai University in the University Department of Chemical Technology (UDCT) with effect from 29th October, 1993. Immediately prior to the petitioner the post was held by one S. G. Patil whose services were terminated. The initial appointment of the first respondent was admittedly on a purely temporary basis for a period of six months or till a permanent appointment/arrangement was made. On 18th April, 1994 the services of the first respondent were extended for a further period of 45 days to expire on 27th April, 1994. With effect from 28th april, 1994 there was further extension of 45 days or until a permanent arrangement was made by the university.

(3.) In his complaint before the Industrial Court the first respondent claimed that he was duly qualified; that the post was vacant and that there was a clear vacancy. The first respondent sought to challenge the order of termination dated 13th June, 1994 and sought an order of absorption as a Laboratory Attendant as a permanent employee. The complaint before the Industrial Court was filed under item Nos. l (b) and (d) of Schedule IV and Item 6 thereof. The University filed its written statement and contested the claim of the first respondent to absorption. The University contended that the appointment was only on a temporary basis and that although the post was vacant and was a permanent post, a temporary appointment was made until the prescribed procedure was followed for filling up the post and the roster position was ascertained. The University denied that it had committed any unfair labour practice under Item 6 of Schedule IV. Insofar as the complaint under Item 1 was concerned, the University specifically objected to the maintainability of the complaint on the ground that it was the Labour Court which would have the jurisdiction.