THE SUPERINTENDING ENGINEER Vs. WAMAN RAGHOBA SHENDE

JUDGEMENT

(1.) In Complaint (ULPN) No. 248 of 2000, the Industrial Court has granted a declaration that the petitioners are engaged in an unfair labour practice under Items 5 and 9 of Schedule IV of the Maharashtra Recognition of Trade Unions and Prevention of Unfair Labour Practices Act (in short "the MRTU and PULP Act"). A positive direction has been given to the petitioners to consider the proposal for bringing the complainants on Converted Regular Temporary Establishment (in short "CRTE") from the year 1982 i.e. from the date, when they were brought on CRTE as Mazdoors. This judgment and order dated 13.01.2006 passed by the Industrial Court is the subject matter of challenge in the present writ petition by the petitionersemployer.

(2.) The question before the Industrial Court was whether the complainants were actually working on the post of Clerks from the dates of their initial appointments till the completion of 5 years service, so as to bring them on CRTE as Clerks in terms of the Kalelkar award. It is not disputed in the present case that the complainant Nos. 1, 2 and 3 were appointed as Mazdoors on 28.09.1977, 29.11.1977 and 01.11.1977 and all of them have been conferred with the benefit of bringing them on CRTE basis as Mazdoors in terms of the Kalelkar award, with effect from 29.09.1982, 27.11.1982 and 01.09.1982 respectively. Thus, all of them have been granted the benefits under the Kalelkar Award.

(3.) The claim of the complainants was that though it is shown that they were appointed as Mazdoors, they have actually performed the duties in the posts of clerk from the dates of their initial appointments till completion of continuous service of 5 years. The Industrial Court has relied upon the proposal sent by the petitioner no.1 to the petitioner no. 2 at Exh.22A, dated 02.12.1994, wherein it is proposed that the complainants be brought on CRTE on the post of Clerk with effect from the year 1982. Accordingly, the direction has been issued to the petitioner No. 2 to consider the proposal sent by the petitioner No.1, which was the only relief claimed in the complaint filed before the Industrial Court alongwith consequential reliefs flowing therefrom.