STATE OF MAHARASHTRA Vs. KALU CHANDAR ZOLE

JUDGEMENT

(1.) THIS writ petition under Articles 226 and 227 of the Constitution of India is directed against an order of the Industrial Court, Nasik, dated 20th February, 1989, made in Complaints (ULP) Nos.210 to 217 and 219 of 1987 under the provisions of the Maharashtra Recognition of Trade Unions and Prevention of Unfair Labour Practices Act,1971 (hereinafter referred to as 'the Act').

(2.) THE Petitioners are the Officers of the State of Maharashtra in its Agriculture, Animal.Husbandry, Dairy Development and Fisheries Department, Nasik. THE Respondents are the employees working in the Dairy Development Department as temporary employees. THE Respondents moved the Industrial Court, Nasik, by their Complaints (ULP) Nos.210 to 217 and 219 of 1987 under the provisions of section 28 read with Items 6, 9 and 10 of the Act. THE Respondents alleged that, though they had been working as labourers on daily wages for several years from 1979 onwards, they had been continued as temporary daily rated workers, for years together, and not made permanent with the object of depriving them all benefits and status of permanent workmen. THE Respondents alleged that this act of the Petitioners amounted to unfair labour practice under Item 6 of Schedule IV of the Act. THE Respondents alleged that there were disparities as to privileges between them and the permanent workers and that they were being continued on daily wages for many years and deprived of the benefits, wages and privileges available to the permanent employees of their category. THE Industrial Court by its order impugned in the writ petition has held that the Petitioners are indulging in unfair labour practice under Item 6 of Schedule IV of the Act and directed them to stop and desist from the said unfair labour practice with immediate effect and provide to the Respondent-employees all the benefits, privileges and status available to their counterparts in regular/permanent establishment. THE Industrial Court directed the Petitioners to pay the arrears of wages to the workmen from the date of complaints within a period of two months from the date of the order. This is the order which is impugned in this writ petition.

(3.) I am informed by Mr.Dharap, learned Advocate for the Respondent-workmen, that during the pendency of this writ petition before this Court some of the Respondents have already been made permanent on different dates. The status of such Respondent-workmen has undergone change at the instance of the Petitioners, though not to the extent as desired by the Respondent-workmen in the complaints. It is made clear that the setting aside of the impugned order shall not operate to the prejudice of any such workmen, who have been given better status than what they enjoyed on the date of the complaints.