VICE CHANCELLOR Vs. GITABAI MAHADEO AMARALE

JUDGEMENT

(1.) Both these petitions impugn a common Judgment and Order dated 9/3/1994 rendered by the Industrial Court at Pune in Complaints (ULP) No.590 to 594 of 1987 and 610 to 627, 660 to 664 of 1987 and 344 of 1988. In the first five complaints the Principal, Krishi Mahavidyalaya, Pune and the Project Co-ordinator, Indian Council Agriculture Research, Krishi Mahavidyalaya, Pune were impleaded as respondents, whereas in all the remaining complaints the Vice Chancellor, Mahatma Phule Krishi Vidyapeeth, Rahuri and the Principal, Krishi Mahavidyalaya, Shivajinagar, Pune were impleaded as respondents. It was the case of the complainants that they were being engaged on temporary basis for years together as Majdoors on the Manjari Farm of Mahatma Phule Agriculture University (Mahatma Phule Krishi Vidyapeeth) Ahmednagar and they were not being made permanent and as a result thereof they were deprived of the benefits available to the permanent employees doing same kind of work as the complainants were doing. The Industrial Court noted that as per the reply submitted by the respondents-the present petitioners, the complainants in Complaints (ULP) No.610 to 627 of 1987 except the complainant in Complaint (ULP) No. 612 of 1987 were made permanent. Similarly, the complainants in Complaints (ULP) No.590 to 594 of 1987 were also made permanent and so was the case with the complainants in Complaints (ULP) No.660 to 664 of 1987. The question, therefore, before the Industrial Court was the date on which the benefits of permanency be extended. In the impugned judgment the Industrial Court held that the present petitioners were guilty of unfair labour practice under Item 6 of Schedule IV of the M.R.T.U. & P.U.L.P. Act, 1971 as well as Item 9 of the said Schedule. The present petitioners were directed to treat the complainants permanent employees from the date on which they had completed 1000 days of work and give them the consequential benefits. The first petition has been filed by the Vice Chancellor, Mahatma Phule Krishi Mahavidyalaya, Rahuri and the Principal, Krishi Mahavidyalaya, Shivaji Nagar, Pune, whereas the second petition has been filed by the Principal, Krishi Mahavidyalaya, Shivaji Nagar, Pune and the Project Co-ordinator, Indian Council Agriculture Research, Krishi Mahavidyalaya, Pune.

(2.) It has been contended by the petitioners that the Agricultural Universities are established and function under the provisions of the Maharashtra Agricultural Universities (Krishi Vidyapeeth) Act, 1983 and the State Government controls all the Agricultural Universities in the State and is responsible for financing them. The Universities own large tracts of land which are used for agricultural education and research activities for which the Universities as well as the College had engaged daily wage labourers. Approximately 4000 such labourers were working at a given point of time under the Agricultural University at its various establishments like the Pune Krishi Mahavidyalaya as well as the Centre of Indian Council for Agriculture Research, Krishi Mahavidyalaya Pune. As per the petitioners when the State Government has not sanctioned the posts for absorption of such casual labourers, the petitioners could not be held to have engaged in unfair labour practice under Items 6 and 9 of Schedule IV of the M.R.T.U. & P.U.L.P. Act, 1971 on the grounds that the complainants were being engaged for years together on the sole ground to deprive them the benefits of permanency. Without filling any permanent posts, subject to the available vacancies as sanctioned by the State Government, engaging of some casual labourers even for months or years together will not per se amount to an act of unfair labour practice and, therefore, it was not proper for the Industrial Court to hold that the petitioners were guilty of unfair labour practice. It has been further contended that the benefits of permanency will be granted as noted by the Industrial Court, but the same benefits was granted only to those who could be accommodated against the sanctioned vacancies.

(3.) The respondents have been served and none appears for them. These petitions have been pending for the last more than 12 years. In the meanwhile, the petitioners had approached the Apex Court challenging the Judgment and Order of this court dated 16/9/1997. After the complaints of unfair labour practice like in the instant petitions were allowed, the complainants had approached the Labour Court by filing Applications under Section 33C(2) of the Industrial Disputes Act, 1947 and all these applications came to be allowed by directing the University to pay a sum of Rs.4,16,97,937.98 paise only. This order was confirmed by the High Court on 16/9/1997. The Apex Court considered the issue regarding the allegations of unfair labour practice within the meaning of Item 6 of Schedule IV of the Act and the Supreme Court, in the case of Mahatma Phule Agricultural University and ors. vs. Nasik Zilla Sheth Kamgar Union [AIR 2001 SC 3228], has observed as under:-