GENERAL SECRETARY Vs. DIRECTOR SOICIAL FORESTRY

JUDGEMENT

(1.) A complaint of unfair labour practices was instituted before the Industrial Court under Items 5, 6, 9 and 10 of Schedule IV of the Maharashtra Recognition of Trade Unions and Prevention of Unfair Labour Practices Act, 1971. The complainant-workmen were appointed as daily wagers under the Social Forestry Department. The workmen sought permanency and consequential benefits.

(2.) The Industrial Court by its judgment dated 11th April 2008 held that the workmen were not appointed on a regular vacant post, no sanctioned post was available and that appointments to a public post must be consistent with the constitutional scheme. The appointments of the complainant-workmen were not made in accordance with the prevailing rules by furnishing an equal opportunity to others. No regular vacant post being available, the workmen would not be entitled to permanency merely upon the completion of 240 days' service. The Industrial Court has inter alia relied upon the judgments of the Supreme Court in (Secretary, State of Karnataka Vs. Umadevi), A.I.R. 2006 S.C. 1806, (M.P. Housing Board Vs. Manoj Shrivastava), 2006(2) S.C.C. 702 and on several other judgments which take the view that regularization in public employment cannot be granted when the initial appointment was de hors the prevalent rules and without following the regular procedure for recruitment.

(3.) At the hearing of these proceedings, it has been urged on behalf of the Petitioner that (i) The judgment of the Supreme Court in Umadevi's case was rendered in the context of the jurisdiction of the High Court under Article 226 of the Constitution; (ii) The judgment in Umadevi does not make any reference to local Acts under which jurisdiction has been vested in the Industrial Tribunal to pass appropriate orders in matters involving unfair labour practices; and (iii) The constitutional scheme does not cover employment in a temporary and casual capacity which would consequently be governed by local Acts; (iv) The Maharashtra Civil Services Rules define the expression "temporary posts" as posts with a definite rate of pay and for a definite period of time and the workman concerned must be regarded as having been appointed to temporary post; and (v) In the alternative, if the government has acted not as a public employer but as a private employer, then in that event no distinction can be made between the consequences that would follow in the case of a private employer and in respect of the government.