STATE OF MAHARASHTRA Vs. DEVUBAI BHAGWAN KHARAT

JUDGEMENT

(1.) By the present writ petition filed under Articles 226 and 227 of the Constitution of India, the petitioners have assailed the legality and correctness of the Judgment and Order dtd. 23/7/2012 passed by the Industrial Court at Thane in Complaint (ULP) No. 117 of 2010. The said complaint was instituted under Items 5 and 9 of Schedule IV of the Maharashtra Recognition of Trade Union and Prevention of Unfair Labour Practices Act, 1971.

(2.) The factual background giving rise to the present writ petition, in brief, is as follows. The respondent instituted a complaint of unfair labour practice on 23/8/2009, asserting that her deceased husband had been in employment with petitioner No. 1 since the year 1988 as a Mazdoor. It was alleged that his services came to be terminated with effect from 1/10/1990. According to the respondent, the petitioners had artificially created breaks in the service of her deceased husband and similarly situated workmen. It was further contended that, pursuant to discussions held before the Assistant Commissioner of Labour, employment was extended to about 15 workers, including the respondent's deceased husband. Out of these, 13 workers were granted permanency. However, the respondent's deceased husband was neither regularised nor brought on the permanent muster roll. As a consequence, he was deprived of the benefits flowing from the Kalelkar Award. The respondent, therefore, alleged that such conduct on the part of the petitioners constituted unfair labour practice under Items 5 and 9 of Schedule IV of the said Act.

(3.) The petitioners resisted the complaint by filing their written statement, wherein they denied the entitlement of the respondent to claim permanency and consequential benefits. It was further contended that the complaint was deficient, inasmuch as it did not specifically disclose the names of persons alleged to have engaged in unfair labour practices, nor did it clearly set out the material particulars of the alleged acts. The petitioners further stated that the respondent's deceased husband, along with other workmen, had been discontinued from service with effect from 1/10/1990. Thereafter, the workmen approached the office of the Labour Commissioner. Pursuant to the intervention of the Assistant Commissioner of Labour, directions were issued to reappoint those workers who had completed more than 240 days of service in a year. In compliance thereof, the respondent's deceased husband was reappointed on a nominal muster roll on 20/2/1996. It was further contended that, in view of the Government Resolution dtd. 24/4/2001, which required completion of five years of continuous service prior to 31/12/1998, the respondent's deceased husband did not satisfy the eligibility criteria and, therefore, could not be conferred the status of a regular temporary worker or be made permanent.