ASHOK YADAV KAMBLE Vs. THE STATE OF MAHARASHTRA

JUDGEMENT

(1.) Heard. Rule. Rule made returnable forthwith, and heard finally with the consent of the parties.

(2.) This Petition is filed praying therein to quash and set aside the order dated 27.06.2013 issued by the Commissioner, Women and Child Development Department.

(3.) It is the case of the petitioner that respondent appointed the petitioner as Watchman on daily wages on permanent available work. The respondents are giving artificial work break of one day to the petitioner. The immediate superior of the petitioner forwarded a proposal of the petitioner for permanency to the respondent nos.1 and 2, but it was pending as it is. Even after 16 years, the respondents have not advanced permanency benefits to the petitioner, hence the petitioner approached Industrial Court by filing Complaint [ULP] No.38/2011. On 14.10.2011, by filing written statement, respondent opposed the claim of the petitioner. On 05.07.2012, the Industrial Court arrived at a conclusion that the respondent has unnecessarily kept the petitioner as temporary employee though the permanent work is available, but in stead of granting relief of permanency, directed respondent no.2 to decide the claim of the petitioner in regards to permanency. By its order dated 27.06.2013, respondent no.2 rejected the claim in respect of permanency.