STATE OF MAHARASHTRA Vs. INDIRA GENERAL KAMAGAR SANGHATANA

JUDGEMENT

(1.) In both these petitions, the judgments and orders dated 6th January, 2005 and 29th November, 2006, passed by the Industrial Court allowing the complaints filed under Section 28 read with Item 5, 6 and 9 of Schedule IV of the Maharashtra Recognition of Trade Union and Prevention of Unfair Labour Practices Act (in shor "the M.R.T.U and P.U.L.P Act), directing regularization of the complainant Nos. 2 to 38 in W.P. No. 2526 of 2006 and complainant Nos. 2 to 5 in W.P. No. 5252 of 2007 in service and to extend them all the benefits arising therefrom in Complaint ULP Nos. 943 of 1994 and 1457 of 1993, have been challenged.

(2.) The Industrial Court has recorded the finding that the complainants have established that they have continuously worked for 240 days and as per the provisions of Clause 4C of the Model Standing Orders, they are entitled to be regularized in service upon completion of continuous service of 240 days. It is also the finding recorded that the complainants have been working as "Badli workers" since last more than 10 years and the work is available with the petitioneremployer to continue them in service. The court has also recorded the finding that the persons who are juniors to the complainants in service were made permanent.

(3.) The question involved in both these petitions is whether the complainants who have completed 240 days continuous service as Badli workers are entitled to claim permanency in terms of Clause 4C of the Model Standing Orders. The question is no longer res integra in view of the two judgments of the different Division Benches of this Court, i.e. (i) in the case of Pune Municipal Corporation vrs. Dhananjay, 2006 4 MhLJ 66 and (ii) in the case of State of Maharashtra vrs. Pandurang, 2008 5 AllMR 497.