MANIK RAMCHANDRA WAGHMODE Vs. STATE OF MAHARASHTRA

JUDGEMENT

(1.) In this writ petition, the order of dismissal passed by the learned Judge, Labour Court, Latur in complaint (ULP) No. 39 of 1987 decided on 23-2-1993 as confirmed in Revision (ULP) No. 33 of 1993 by the learned Member, Industrial Court, Solapur, by his judgment and order dated 8-4-1996, is challenged.

(2.) Briefly stated, the present petitioner had filed complaint under section 28 of the Maharashtra Recognition of Trade Unions and Prevention of Unfair Labour Practices Act, 1971 ("MRTU and PULP Act" for the sake of brevity.) alleging that the respondent appointed him as ward boy on 2-8-1985 for the period of 29 days and thereafter as many as 13 orders of appointment each for 29 days were issued with technical breaks. Though the petitioner was working, he was not paid for the break periods. Thus, between 2-8-1985 to 17-3-1987, by 14 appointment orders of 29 days each, the petitioner worked on various posts and thereafter he was not given any fresh appointment and thus his services were terminated illegally. He has put in the work of more than 240 days prior to termination which was with effect from 17-3-1987. There was no compliance of section 25-F of the Industrial Disputes Act, 1947 ("ID Act" for short) and, therefore, there was indulgence into unfair labour practice by the respondent and hence complaint was filed seeking relief of reinstatement with continuity of service and backwages.

(3.) The respondents filed written statement at Exhibit C-19 and stated that all the appointments were made on leave vacancies on temporary basis. The provisions of MRTU and PULP are not applicable. According to respondents, there was no termination of service, but period of appointment came to an end and, therefore, there was no retrenchment. The appointments, according to respondents, were on ad hoc and temporary basis and so the complaint deserves to be dismissed.