GUNDU VISHNU CHANDAM Vs. BEEJ GUNAN ADHIKARI

JUDGEMENT

(1.) All these petitions under Article 227 of the Constitution arise from the Judgment and Order dated 17/11/1995 rendered by the Industrial Court at Kolhapur thereby allowing Complaint (ULP) No.127 of 1990 partly in terms of the following directions:- "The respondent is directed to continue the enlisted workers except Rajaram Dhondiba Dhera, so long as the seasonal work is available and not to effect retrenchment without compliance of Sec. 25F, I.D. Act, 1947, in case of as and when cause arises." Hence all the three petitions are being decided by this common judgment.

(2.) Complaint (ULP) No. 127 of 1990 was filed by the Union, namely, Kolhapur Zilla Shetmazdoor Parishad, Kolhapur seeking a benefit of permanency in employment for 14 daily rated workers engaged by the respondent no.1. The respondent no.2 in W.P. No.4753/96 be deleted forthwith. The Union had contended that the said 14 workers were working for 10 years or so continuously under respondent no.1 and there were other 4 to 5 permanent employees with the said respondent, who were doing similar work as was being assigned to the said workers, except one who was watchman. The Union further alleged that the said workmen were not being given the benefit of permanency only with an intention to deny them the said benefit inspite of the fact that there were permanent vacancies and the nature of the work performed by these daily rated workers was continuous and permanent. The Union claimed that the respondent - Officer was guilty of acts of unfair labour practice under items 5, 6 and 9 of Schedule IV of the M.R.T.U. and P.U.L.P. Act, 1971 (for short the Act). The respondent had filed reply and opposed the complaint by contending that the said daily rated workers were being engaged strictly as per the requirement and only during the season and in any case they were not being employed all days of the month. It was further denied that they were in employment for 10 yeas or so and was also stated that none of them had completed the service of 240 days in any year. Along with the reply, the Chart was submitted giving details of the number of days worked by the said workers right from 1986 onwards.

(3.) After hearing both the parties, the learned Member of the Industrial Court held that the workers were doing seasonal work and the respondent was not deliberately avoiding to grant permanency and recorded that there were no permanent vacancies for their absorption and, therefore, the respondent was not guilty of unfair labour practice as alleged, except Shri Rajaram Dhondiba Dhera all other workmen working on the establishment of respondent no.1 since 2 to 5 years prior to filing of complaint. Consequently, the prayer for permanency was dismissed.