STATE OF MAHARASHTRA Vs. MAYAVATI RAMCHANDRA SAWANT

JUDGEMENT

(1.) Rule. Rule made returnable forthwith and heard learned counsel for the parties. The petitioners are aggrieved by the judgment of the Maharashtra Administrative Tribunal (for short, 'the Tribunal') passed in Original Application No.756 of 2020 dtd. 14/02/2022 by which the said Original Application preferred by the respondents was allowed and a direction was issued to the petitioners to regularise the services of the respondents in terms of the order passed by the Industrial Court in Complaint (ULP) No.248 of 1996 decided on 29/07/2003.

(2.) Facts relevant for considering the challenge as raised to the judgment of the Tribunal are that the respondents claim to be Badli workmen discharging duties at various Government hospitals as ward boys, Aayas, sweepers and other Class-IV posts. Despite availability of permanent posts at various such hospitals, the services of the respondents were not being regularised. They had filed Complaint (ULP) No.248 of 1996 under Sec. 28 of the Maharashtra Recognition of Trade Unions and Prevention of Unfair Labour Practices Act, 1971 (for short, the Act of 1971') invoking the provisions of Item 6 of Schedule-IV on the premise that failure to regularise their services amounted to an unfair labour practice. The learned Member of the Industrial Court after considering the entire material on record was pleased to hold that by failing to grant the benefit of seniority as well as permanancy to the members of the Union, the petitioners had committed an unfair labour practice under the Act of 1971. Hence by the judgment dtd. 29/07/2003, a direction was issued to the petitioners to consider the Badli workers shown in the Seniority List at Exhibit-A with Exhibit C-13 in the complaint as per their seniority and after considering their suitability, grant them permanancy in proportion to the vacant permanent posts available. According to the respondents, despite the judgment of the Industrial Court attaining finality their services were not regularised. The respondents were discriminated in this matter and Badli workmen who were junior to them had been regularised or absolved in service. On this premise, the respondents preferred Original Application No.756 of 2020 before the Tribunal at Mumbai.

(3.) The petitioners in their affidavit in reply took the stand that the services rendered by the respondents were of a temporary nature and that they had not been continued in service voluntarily. It was only on account of orders passed in various proceedings that the services of the respondents were being continued. In view of the decision of the Supreme Court in Secretary, State of Karnataka and other Vs. Umadevi & others, (2006) 4 SCC 1 the respondents were not entitled to any relief whatsoever. The Tribunal held that the basis for claiming relief by the respondents was the judgment of the Industrial Court in Complaint (ULP) No.248 of 1996. The said decision had become final and that the names of the respondents had been specifically mentioned in the list of Badli workmen therein for regularisation of their services. It was held that respondents were entitled to the benefit of the aforesaid decision and hence the Original Application came to be allowed by the impugned judgment dtd. 14/02/2022. Being aggrieved, the petitioners have challenged the aforesaid judgment in this writ petition.