LAGWAD ADHIKARI Vs. YASIN HAMID SAYYAD

JUDGEMENT

(1.) All these petitions have been filed by the Plantation Officer, Social Forestry Department at Shirur, District Pune and the Deputy Director of Social Forestry as well as the State Government challenging separate orders passed by the Industrial Court at Pune in the respective complaints filed by the daily rated temporary appointees as watchman/ labour and the common relief of granting permanency with consequential benefits has been granted by these orders. Petitions involved common questions of fact and law and, therefore, they are being decided by a common judgment.

(2.) The complainants who claimed to have been appointed as daily rated watchmam/labour at the Plantation Centres in Shirur Taluka of Pune District claimed that they had worked continuously for more than five years (six to ten years) and in every year they had completed 240 or more days of service in the preceding five years and, therefore, they were entitled for the benefit of permanency. The complaints were filed under Items 5, 6, 9 and 10 of Schedule IV of the Maharashtra Recognition of Trade Unions & Prevention of Unfair Labour Practices Act, 1971 (for short the Act) read with Section 28(1) therein. In short, the claim made by the complainants was that they were doing the same type of work which the permanent employees of the Social Forestry Department posted in the Plantation Centers were doing, the employment was uninterrupted and work was available. For the same work the department had its own permanent employees as well as temporary daily rated, like the complainants and this was being done to deprive them benefits of permanency like regular payscale, pension and other retiral benefits as available to the permanent employees. They further claimed that the Industrial Disputes Act, 1947 was applicable to them and in any case the daily rate of wages was increased from Rs.12/- to Rs.31.70 and their seniority was not maintained. If there was any discontinuation in some months it was only by way of artificial break. They had submitted various representations through their Union seeking the benefits of permanency but no action was taken. All these complaints were filed between the period from December, 1994 to March, 1996. There was no reference to any statutory provisions or any Rule entitling them to be made permanent on account of continuous service of more than five years with more than 240 days of work in every year. No Government Circular was relied upon or any Government Resolution referred to when the complaints were filed for seeking the benefits of permanency. It was not the case of the complainants initially when the State Government had taken a policy decision to regularise all such complainants and others were regularised and the complainants were denied the said benefit.

(3.) By the impugned Judgment and Order the Industrial Court at Pune held that there was no case of unfair labour practice either under Item 5 or Item 10 of Schedule IV of the Act, but the complainants had proved that the department of Social Forestry was guilty of engaging in unfair labour practices within the meaning of Items 6 and 9 of Schedule IV of the Act. It ought to be noted at this stage itself that during the pendency of the complaints and more so when the recording of evidence had commenced in all these complaints the Government of Maharashtra issued a Resolution on 19/10/1996 thereby announcing a scheme for creation of 1164 Group -D supernumerary posts and the complainants while in the witness box relied upon the said GR for considering their complaints only by way of oral depositions that despite they were eligible for the benefits of the said GR, their cases were not considered for permanency against 1164 supernumerary posts created by the same. The Plantation Officer who stepped in the witness box to defend the complaints, admitted that the GR was issued and that the complainants' cases were not considered for regularisation under the said GR. One of the reasons stated in the oral depositions was that the complainants had either worked under the Employment Guarantee Scheme or the Jawahar Rojgar Yojana and, therefore, they were disqualified for claiming benefit of permanency under the GR dated 19/10/1996.