VISHWANATH SHRIRANG UNHALE Vs. GOVERNMENT OF MAHARASHTRA

JUDGEMENT

(1.) Rule. Rule made returnable forthwith. Heard finally with the consent of the learned counsel appearing for the parties.

(2.) By these writ petitions, the petitioners have challenged judgment and order dated 09.09.2015 passed by the Industrial Court, Maharashtra (Akola Bench), whereby a complaint filed by them under the provisions of the Maharashtra Recognition of Trade Unions and Prevention of Unfair Labour Practices Act, 1971 (for short " MRTU & PULP Act), was dismissed.

(3.) The petitioners had filed the aforesaid complaint under Section 28 of the MRTU & PULP Act, claiming that the respondents had committed unfair labour practice under Items 5,6 and 9 of Schedule IV of the said Act. It was claimed by the petitioners that they had joined on various dates from 1987 onwards with the respondent no.3 Zilla Parishad as daily wage employees and they were continuously working as such for long periods of time without being given the benefit of the regularisation. The complaint was filed on 21.10.2003 seeking a specific direction against the respondent no.3 to treat them as permanent employees and to give all the monetary benefits with retrospective effect. In he said complaint, one of the complainants who is the petitioner in these writ petitions, had sworn and submitted an affidavit before the Industrial Court, stating that he had joined on 09.11.1987 in the Water Supply Scheme implemented by respondent no.3 Zilla Parishad and that he was continuously working on daily wages. It was stated in the said affidavit that he was filing the claim affidavit on behalf of other complainants (petitioners) also. In paragraph 3 of the affidavit, details of dates of joining, the nature of posts held by the petitioners, details of their salaries and other details were stated. It was specifically claimed that Kalelkar Award was applicable to all the complainants and that, therefore, they were entitled to relief as claimed in the complaint. Thereafter, a pursis dated 30.09.2004 was filed before the Industrial Court, which was signed by all the complainants stating that they were adopting the claim affidavit placed on record by the aforesaid complainant.