ARMY INSTITUTE OF TECHNOLOGY Vs. SATISH SHIVAJI JAGTAP

JUDGEMENT

(1.) Since all these writ petitions involve common questions of law and fact, they are being disposed of by this common judgment and order.

(2.) By these writ petitions filed under Article 227 of the Constitution of India, the petitioner has challenged the Judgment and Order dtd. 22/8/2022 passed by the Industrial Court in the complaints instituted by the respective respondents.

(3.) The facts giving rise to the present writ petitions may be stated in brief. In Writ Petition No. 9709 of 2023, the respondent, Satish Shivaji Jagtap, is employed with the petitioner. His father, late Shivaji Jagtap, was serving as a driver with the petitioner and died while on duty. Thereafter, the respondent was appointed on compassionate grounds as a Hostel Attendant for the period from 4/7/2011 to 30/6/2014. The petitioner is a society registered under the Maharashtra Societies Act, 1960, and employs more than 100 employees. It is therefore the case of the respondent that all labour legislations are applicable to the petitioner establishment. The petitioner has also allotted a residential quarter to the respondent. According to the respondent, he was assured that he would be granted permanency in service. However, no such benefit has been extended to him till date, though he claims to be working against a clear and vacant post. It is further alleged that he is being paid wages lower than those paid to permanent employees performing similar duties and even less than the prescribed minimum wages. He asserts that no other service benefits have been extended to him. According to him, he has been continued as an ad hoc employee only to deny him the benefits of permanency, despite the existence of sanctioned vacant posts. He contends that he has completed 240 days of continuous service in each year and has, therefore, filed the complaint seeking permanency and consequential service benefits.