MAHATMA PHULE KRISHI VIDHYAPEETH Vs. VITTHAL SAKHARAM KADAM

JUDGEMENT

(1.) This is a Writ Petition filed by employer against the judgment and order dated 10.11.1995 of the learned Member, Industrial Court, Ahmednagar, allowing Complaint (ULP) No. 19 of 1992 filed by present Respondent No. 1, thereby holding that the present writ petitioner employer had engaged into unfair labour practice as per items 6 and 9 of Schedule IV of the Maharashtra Recognition of Trade Unions & Prevention of Unfair Labour Practices Act, 1971 ("for short "the MRTU & PULP Act") and directed the writ petitioner to make Respondent No. 1 permanent as Audio Visual Operator ("A.V. Operator" for short) with effect from 20.1.1992 and provide him status and privileges and all other consequential benefits and pay arrears accordingly.

(2.) Briefly stated, it is the case of Respondent No. 1complainantemployee that he was appointed initially on 3.12.1985 as A.V. Operator and he worked continuously for more than 240 days with Petitioner Agricultural University which is running various colleges at various places. The petitioner University undertakes and carries out activities like research of seeds. Respondent No. 1 was initially appointed for eleven months and thereafter he was given appointments from time to time on daily wages on the said post of A.V. Operator. Since the date of appointment, Respondent No. 1 has been performing his duties as A.V. Operator. Service record of Respondent No. 1, according to him, was unblemished. However, in order to deprive him right of permanency, for all these years he was kept in service on temporary basis. On 5.9.1986 and 2.9.1989, the writ petitioner employer published advertisements inviting applications for the post of A.V. Operator without laying down condition of possessing education qualification as a wireman. However, in the subsequent advertisement published on 2.10.1991 the writ petitioner imposed said condition and thereby entered into unfair labour practice under items 5, 6 and 9 of Schedule IV of the Act and thus denied Respondent No. 1 right of regularization/permanency of appointment as A.V. Operator from the date of his initial appointment and, therefore, he filed the said Complaint (ULP) No. 19 of 1992.

(3.) Petitioner employer filed its say at Exhibit C9 and denied all allegations in the complaint and contended that the complaint was not maintainable. However, it as admitted that the post of A.V. Operator was advertised. It is alleged that qualification for the said post was not fulfilled by Respondent No. 1 and, therefore, he was not made permanent on regular establishment on the basis of advertisement. Since the complainant did not fulfill the educational qualification, there is no question of filling vacancy of A.V. Operator on permanent basis nor can petitioner has any right to get himself appointed on permanent basis. Qualification or eligibility for the post of A.V. Operator was prescribed by the Maharashtra Council of Agricultural Education and Research which is established as per the provisions laid down in the Maharashtra Universities Act, 1983. The Council has prescribed two qualifications/eligibility for the post of A.V. Operator, namely, (i) passing of S.S.C or its equivalent examination with English and (ii) wireman's examination at least in second class with minimum 2 years experience of handling and operating projector and public addressing equipment. However, preference is to be given to those who have diploma of handling and operating S.S.V. film and Slide Projector. According to Petitioner employer, Respondent No. 1complainant had not passed wireman's examination and merely holding a post of wireman is not enough as claimed by Respondent No. 1. According to petitioner, it had not indulged into unfair labour practice and, therefore, complaint should have been dismissed.