MUNICIPAL COUNCIL BHANDARA Vs. JAIWANTABAI

JUDGEMENT

(1.) FROM these petitions, facts and orders in Writ Petitions No. 2474/95; 2724/95; 2486/95; 466/96 and 2975/95 are being considered for disposal of these petitions. Though the petitions of 1995 were not placed for hearing, as there was an order of hearing the petitions together, with the consent of the Advocates, the same are being disposed of. The employer is the same i. e. the petitioner herein. The complaints have been filed by the employees engaged by the petitioner on daily wages. The complaints have been filed under section 28 read with items (5), (6) and (9) of Schedule IV of the Maharashtra recognition of Trade Unions and Prevention of unfair Labour Practices Act, 1972 (for short, the Unfair Labour Practices Act ). The complainants before the Industrial Court prayed that the petitioners herein be held to have committed an unfair labour practice and further have prayed that the Industrial Court be pleased to issue directions to desist the petitioner from committing the unfair labour practice and to direct that the employees be made permanent in the post from the date of their employment with the further direction to pay the difference of wages with all arrears from the date of the effect of permanency and some other directions.

(2.) IN Writ Petition No. 2474 of 1995, what is impugned is the order dated 2nd February, 1995 whereby in a common judgment four complaints have been disposed of. The Industrial Court therein has held that the petitioner was engaged in unfair labour practice and has directed the petitioner to make the services of complainants permanent in the post of Helpers/labours/class-IV category from the date of complaint i. e. 17-9-1991 and to give all benefits of permanency to them. In Writ Petition No. 2724 of 1995, the industrial Court by order dated 22-2-1995 has disposed of eight complaints filed by the complainants therein. The Industrial Court has held that the petitioner is engaged in an unfair labour practice. The Industrial Court has further directed the petitioners to take steps for securing the necessary approval from the government for creating permanent posts so that the complainants before it could be made permanent in these posts. There is a further direction that as soon as the posts are sanctioned, the respondents to immediately take steps to make the complainants permanent. One complaint being complaint (ULPA) No. 1053 has been dismissed. It is further directed that the petitioners were to give benefits and privileges of permanent employees from the date of the order. Counsel informs me that no petition has been preferred against the order rejecting complaint (ULPA) No. 1053 till date. In Writ Petition No. 2486/95, the order impugned is dated 6th February, 1995 which was passed as common order in eight complaints which were pending before the Industrial Court. By the said order the Industrial Court held that the petitioners are engaged in unfair labour practice in not granting permanency to the complainants. The petitioners herein have been directed to move the Government immediately for obtaining sanction to the post of Fireman so as to enable them to make complainants before it permanent. The petitioners were further directed to pay consolidated pay of Rs. 1,200/- per month to the complainants before it from March 1995 onwards till sanction is accorded by the Government to the post and the complainants before are made permanent. In Writ Petition No. 466 of 1996, what is challenged is the order dated 13-10-1995 whereby the Industrial Court has disposed of nine complaints before it. The Industrial Court has held that the petitioners were engaged in unfair labour practice under Items (6) and (9) of schedule IV of the Unfair Labour Practice Act in not granting permanency to the complainants in the posts that they were holding. The petitioners were directed to take steps securing necessary sanction from the appropriate Authority so that the complainants can be conferred with the rights and privileges of the permanent employees. There is a further direction that as soon as petitioners receive sanction from the appropriate Authority to the permanent posts, they shall immediately make the complainants permanent. The petitioners have been directed to give benefits and privileges of permanent employee to the employees when they have completed two years of service from the date they were first engaged. The complainants before the industrial Court were engaged on various dates. In Writ Petition No. 2979 of 1995, what is impugned is order dated 2nd August, 1995 which was passed by the Industrial Court in three complaints filed by the complainants therein. By the said order the Industrial Court held that the petitioners had indulged in an unfair labour practice by not extending the benefits and privileges of permanent employees to the complainants. The respondents were directed to extend all benefits and privileges of permanent employees from the date of respective complaints and to make the complainants permanent whenever the vacancy would arise in future and further to represent to the Government for creation of sanctioned posts. All these petitions have been filed by the petitioners who were respondents in the complaint filed before the Industrial Court.

(3.) THE respondents who were complainants before the Industrial Court, have also filed cross petitions which are numbered as Writ Petitions No. 2883/95, 2723/95, 2778/95, 2882/95, 2724/95 and 2878/95.