VISHWANATH SHANKAR SADAFULE Vs. MAHARASHTRA STATE ELECTRICITY

JUDGEMENT

(1.) The above Letters Patent Appeal is filed challenging the judgment and order dated 26-2-2010 of the Learned Single Judge of this Court (Anoop V. Mohta J. by which order the above Writ Petition being No.5786 of 1997 filed by the Respondent No.1 came to be allowed and resultantly the judgment and order dated 29-4-1997 passed by the Learned Member of the Industrial Court, Solapur in Complaint ULP No.210 of 1989 and companion ULP's came to be set aside.

(2.) The facts involved in the above Letters Patent Appeal can in brief be stated thus: The original complainants i.e. the Appellants herein were ex- servicemen and had applied for the post of watchman with the Respondent No.1 herein which is an Electricity Distribution Company. The said application was made by the complainants sometime in the year 1988. The complainants were appointed to the post of watchman on 15-2-1988 on contract basis on a fixed tenure on an consolidated salary of Rs.400/- per month. The complainants rendered continuous services for a period of over 19 months and were given a break of two days and thereafter reemployed on contract basis and subject to the terms and conditions which were applicable to their earlier appointment. Since the complainants were not made permanent or their services were not regularised that they filed complaint under Section 28 read with Item 6, 9 and 10 of the Schedule IV of the MRTU and PULP Act 1971. The said Complaints were numbered as 210 of 1981, 211 of 1981 and 212 of 1981. In the said Complaints the principal prayer of the complainants was a direction to the Respondent No.1 to confer the status and privileges of the permanent employees on the complainants. It was the case of the complainants that they have worked for more than 240 days and that the work discharged by the complainants was permanent and perennial in nature. It was further their case that the Respondent No.1 has framed regulations for appointing and regularising the services of the employees like the complainants. It was their case that they were entitled for regularisation as the model standing orders are applicable to them and that in not conferring them the benefits of permanency, the Respondent No.1 has committed a breach of the standing orders. It was the case of the complainants that the Respondent No.1 has opened vehicle service centers at many District places and hence the services of the complainants were required by the Respondent No.1. It was therefore the case of the complainants that by not giving them the benefits of permanency the Respondent No.1 has committed unfair labour practice under Items 6, 9 and 10 of Schedule IV of the MRTU & PULP Act, 1971. The Complaints came to be amended as after filing of the complaint, the services of the complainants came to be terminated having regard to the terms of their appointment. The complainants therefore prayed for their reinstatement with effect from 4-1-1990 with continuity of service and payment of back wages.

(3.) In the said Complaints the Respondent No.1 filed its Written Statement. The Respondent No.1 at the outset questioned the territorial jurisdiction of the Industrial Court, at Solapur as according to it the Industrial Court Pune would have jurisdiction. It was the case of the Respondent No.1 that since the complainants were ex-servicemen and had approached the Respondent No.1 for employment on account of their financial stringency, the Respondent No.1 had with a view to help the complainants financially, had engaged them for a fixed period on a consolidated salary for providing additional security to the vehicles in the workshop. The Respondent No.1 averred in the Written Statement that the complainants having not been recruited by following the regular procedure prescribed for recruitment, could not claim any right on the basis of their said appointment. In so far as their continuance in the post of watchman is concerned, it was the case of the Respondent No.1 that the services of the complainants were required to be terminated with the final contractual period coming to an end on 3-1-1990. It was the case of the Respondent No.1 that no unfair labour practice was committed by the Respondent No.1 and that since the construction of the car washer room which was in progress that the complainants were engaged for the sake of security and on completion of all the construction work their contractual period came to an end on 3-1-1990. It was also averred by the Respondent No.1 that there is no sanctioned post of watchman in the District Vehicle Service Center at Solapur.