SHRI. TUKARAM JOMA SHIRKE Vs. THE CHIEF ENGINEER, IRRIGATION DIVISION, THE SUPERINTENDING ENGINEER, KHARBHOOMI VIKAS MANDAL AND EXECUTIVE ENGINEER, KHARBHOOMI SARVEKSHAN VA. ANVAISHAN, PEN DIVISION

JUDGEMENT

(1.) THE present complaint is filed by Tukaram Joma Shirke against Chief Engineer, Irrigation Division, Konkan Pradesh and others, for the unfair Labour practice under items 5, 6, 9 and 10 of schedule IV of the MRTU and PULP Act. It is the case of the Complainant that Respondent No. 1 is the Head of the Department of Irrigation, Konkan Pradesh. The Respondent No. 2 is the Head of the circle and the Respondent No. 3 is the Head of the Division of Pen. The Complainant has filed present Complaint on behalf of himself and also on behalf of Vasant Pandurang Shigwan and Shankar Kondiba Jadhav.

(2.) IT is stated that the Complainant was in the employment of the Respondent since 4th June, 1986 as a peon in Sub Division Pen. His wages were Rs. 200/ - per month. Shankar Kondiba Jadhav was in the employment since 2nd March, 1988 as a peon. Earlier he worked for about 5 years in the Hydro Electric Project, Koyna and thereafter in the Pen Division. His wages were Rs. 250/ -. Vasant Pandurang Shigwan was appointed as a Chowkidar from 4th June, 1986 in the office of the Executive Engineer at Pen Division and his wages were also Rs. 200/ - per month. All of them were medically examined for the purpose of fitness.

(3.) THE Complainant and other two are the project affected person. Shri Shigwan and the Complainant were given the annual increment of Rs. 3/ - per year in the year 1987. They have worked more than 240 days continuously in each of their service. Their services were interrupted by giving artificial break. The said breaks were given in order to defeat their claim of permanency and for depriving them the benefits of permanent employees. The act of the Respondent is against the policy. The provisions of Industrial Employment (Standing Order) are applicable to the Respondent. The Government has also issued a circular for providing employment to two persons from each of the project affected families. The nature of the work of the Complainant and others is of permanent nature. The Respondents are not making them permanent which is in contravention of the provisions of Standing Order. They have no means of livelihood being Koyan Project affected persons. So the Respondents committed unfair labour practice by making the contravention of the Standing order and other service conditions. The complaint is, therefore, filed asking relief that it be declared that the Respondents indulged in the unfair labour practice and also to give permanency to Complainant and other two with all benefits, privileges allowances etc. They have also requested for the payment of earned wages and other reliefs.