SHRI SWAMI VIVEKANAND SHIKSHAN SANSTHECHYA SEVAKANCHI SAHAKARI PAT SANSTHA MARYADIT, THOUGH ITS CHAIRMAN AND SHRI SWAMI VIVEKANAND SHIKSHAN SANTHECHYA SEVAKANCHI SAHAKARI PAT SANSTHA MARYADIT, THROUGH ITS SECRETARY Vs. SHRI BABURAO RANGRAO DESAI

JUDGEMENT

(1.) THOSE revisions are filed by original Respondents challenging legality of common judgment and order passed in Complaint (ULP) No. 133 to 137 and 139 of 1997 by Labour Court, Kolhapur, whereby they are directed to reinstate original Complainants to their usual posts with continuity of service and full back wages. The Respondent of Revision (ULP) No. 47/99 namely Shri Baburao Rangrao Desai filed Complaint (ULP) No. 136/97. The Respondent of Revision (ULP) No. 48/99 namely Kumari Jayashri Gajanan Joshi filed Complaint (ULP) No. 137/97. The Respondent of Revision (ULP) No. 49/99 namely Sangram Viswasrao Ingale filed Complaint (ULP) No. 139 of 1997. Respective Respondents of respective Revision Applications are hereby called as the Complainants. Respective complaints are filed under section 28(1) read with item 1 of Sch. IV of the MRTU and PULP Act, 1971, challenging termination of respective Complainants.

(2.) IT is case of the respective Complainants that they were appointed by the Respondent Society as clerks Complainants Shri Baburao Desai and Kumari Jayashri Joshi are working from 19th March 1986 whereas other Complainant namely Shri Sangram Ingale is working from 10th January 1995. Thus, they have worked continuously for more than 240 days in a year and hence acquired status and privileges of permanent employees, according to provisions of I.D. Act as well as Industrial Employment Standing Orders Act. Complainant Shri Sangram Ingale has come with a case that the Respondent did not allow him to work on 5th April 1997 and thereby terminated his service. Other two Complainant have contended that they worked as usual till 4th April 1997. Government of Maharashtra appointed administrator to administer Respondent society and he took charge on 4th April 1997. A meeting of erstwhile member of Director was scheduled on 5th April 1997 and one of the subject on its agends was of granting permanency to respective Complainants. However, the meeting could not take place as the Administrator took charge on 4th April 1997. The Complainants, therefore, requested the Administrator to continue their services but he refused. In fact, work is available with the Respondent. As such, their oral termination is illegal. Besides, the termination is in contravention of Sec. 25F and 25G of I.D. Act, 1947 as well as section 66 of Bombay Shops and Establishment Act.

(3.) THE Respondent society filed its written statement and traversed all material allegations made by the Complainants. It contended that there was big fraud and misappropriation in large scale of its funds. As such, re -audit of past 10 years was to be made during the years 1995 -96 and 1996 -1997. Re -audit through original staff was difficult as well as not convenient. Consequently, the Complainants were appoints for re -auditing purpose and for a specific period. On completion of re -audit, their services were not required and thus their services automatically came to an end. The Respondents thus denied that the Complainants have acquired status of permanent employees. Finally it prayed for dismissal of the complaints.