Mobile View
Main Search Forums Advanced Search Disclaimer
Cites 10 docs - [View All]
The Plantations Labour Act, 1951
State Of Maharashtra vs Pandurang Patil And Ors. on 7 September, 2007
Section 28 in The Plantations Labour Act, 1951
The Divisional Manager, Division ... vs Chimna Arjun Jadhav on 13 June, 2001
Article 142 in The Constitution Of India 1949

User Queries
View the actual judgment from court
Bombay High Court
Gondia vs Ou on 9 March, 2012
Bench: Ravi K. Deshpande

1

wp3967.06.odt

IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY, rt

NAGPUR BENCH, NAGPUR

ou

Writ Petition No.3967 of 2006

C

1. Chief Conservator of Forests

(Territorial), Nagpur.

2. Deputy Conservator of Forests, Divisional Forest Office,

Bhandara Division, Bhandara.

h

3. Range Forest Officer,

Gondia.

ig

Tiroda, Tah. Tiroda Dn.,

... Petitioners

H

Versus

1. Ashikque s/o Jabbar Sheikh,

Aged 47 years,

Occupation - Service,

y

R/o Gangazari, Tahsil and

Distt. Gondia.

ba

2. Hetsingh s/o Baldeosingh Nagbhire, Age 37 years,

Occupation - Service,

R/o Gangazari Tahsil and

om

Distt. Gondia.

3. Pendhru s/o Ganpat Bansod,

Aged 49 years,

Occupation - Service,

R/o Kharra, Post Gangajhari,

Tah. and Distt. Gondia.

B

4. Manoj s/o Sadaram Sonwane,

R/o Dadegaon,

Tah. and Distt. Gondia.

5. Vitthal s/o Beniram Jagnit,

Aged 43 years,

Occupation - Service,

R/o Dadegaon,

Tah. and Distt. Gondia.

::: Downloaded on - 09/06/2013 18:16:45 ::: 2

wp3967.06.odt

6. Dilip s/o Yadorao Patle,

rt

Aged 35 years,

Occupation - Service,

R/o Gangazari,

ou

Tah. and Distt. Gondia.

7. Dhanraj s/o Sadaram Sonwane,

Aged 39 years,

Occupation - Service,

C

R/o Dadegaon,

Tah. and Distt. Gondia.

8. Likhiram s/o Tulsiram Bansod,

Aged 42 years,

Occupation - Service,

h

R/o Kharra, Post Gangajhari,

Tah. and Distt. Gondia.

ig

9. Dhanlal s/o Dulichand Bise,

sinde deceased, through his LRs.: H

9A.Smt. Dhanwanta Dhanlal Bisen (Wife), Age 44 years.

9B.Shri Vinodkumar Dhanlal Bisen (Son), Age 24 years.

y

9C.Ku. Shilabai Dhanlal Bisen (Daughter), Age 17 years.

ba

9D.Niteshkumar Dhanlal Bisen (Son), Age 15 years.

Nos.9A to 9D R/o Dhaminewada,

om

Post Hodegaon, Tah. & Distt. Gondia.

10. Gulab s/o Gopal Bisen,

Age 43 years,

Occupation - Service,

R/o Indora,

B

Tah. Tiroda, Distt. Gondia.

11. Munna s/o Manohar Walde,

Aged 39 years,

Occupation - Service,

R/o Indora, Tah. Tiroda,

Distt. Gondia.

12. Baburao s/o Pandurang Khadse, Aged 40 years,

Occupation - Service,

R/o Indora,

::: Downloaded on - 09/06/2013 18:16:45 ::: 3

wp3967.06.odt

Tah. Tiroda, Distt. Gondia.

rt

13. Ratanlal s/o Surajlal Kirsan, Aged 40 years,

ou

Occupation - Service,

R/o Govindtola, Post Sakoli,

Tah. Tiroda, Distt. Gondia. ... Respondents C

Smt. K.R. Deshpande, AGP for Petitioners. Ms K.K. Pathak, Advocate for Respondents. h

ig

CORAM : R.K. Deshpande, J.

Date of Reserving the Judgment : 2-3-2012 H

Date of Pronouncing the Judgment : 9-3-2012 Judgment :

y

ba

1. This petition is preferred by the petitioners/employers challenging the judgment and order dated 13-7-2005 passed by the Industrial Court, Bhandara, in Complaint (ULPA) No.55 of 2001. The om

Industrial Court has partly allowed the complaint filed by the respondents under Section 28 read with Items 5, 6 and 9 of Schedule IV of the Maharashtra Recognition of Trade Unions and Prevention of Unfair Labour B

Practices Act, 1971 (for short, "the MRTU & PULP Act") by directing the petitioners/employers to take affirmative action of regularizing the respondents/complainants in service with effect from 1-1-1997 as Van Majoor in Group-D category and to make them payment of difference of wages in the said post with effect from 1-10-2001. The Industrial Court has also granted a declaration that the petitioners/employers have ::: Downloaded on - 09/06/2013 18:16:45 ::: 4

wp3967.06.odt

engaged themselves in unfair labour practice under Item 9 of Schedule IV rt

of the MRTU & PULP Act by issuing the order dated 14-9-2001 directing ou

the respondents/complainants to work under the Employment Guarantee Scheme (EGS).

C

2. The facts of the case are as under : The respondents filed Complaint (ULP) No.680 of 2001 in the h

Industrial Court invoking the provisions of Section 28 read with Items 5, 6 ig

and 9 of Schedule Iv of the MRTU & PULP Act, alleging that they have been continuously working in the service of the petitioners/employers on H

daily-rated basis as Majdoors since 1987-88 and they are being paid with the salary on Nominal Muster Roll ("NMR"). It is alleged that the y

respondents/complainants are performing regular nature of work and the petitioners/employers are continuing them on daily-rated basis for years ba

together, denying them the benefits of permanency. It is further alleged in the complaint that the other employees working, like the om

respondents/complainants, have been appointed on regular basis and they are being paid with their salary in the pay-scale applicable to the post on which they are working. They are enjoying the benefits of B

permanency including T.A., D.A., C.A., increments, etc., and such benefits are not being extended to the respondents/complainants. It is alleged that the persons, who were earlier appointed under the EGS, are shown senior to the respondents/complainants in the seniority list maintained by the petitioners/employers and all those persons have been regularized in service by issuing the Government Resolution dated 31-1-1996 and this ::: Downloaded on - 09/06/2013 18:16:45 ::: 5

wp3967.06.odt

treatment is denied to the respondents/complainants. It is alleged that in rt

spite of normal work being available, the respondents/complainants are ou

posted to work under EGS.

3. In the background of the aforesaid averments, the relief was C

claimed in the said complaint to declare that the petitioners/employers are engaged in unfair labour practices covered by Items 5, 6 and 9 of Schedule IV of the MRTU & PULP Act and the affirmative action was also h

claimed of directing the petitioners/employers to regularize the services ig

of the respondents/complainants and to place them in the appropriate pay-scale applicable to the post on which they are working. It was also H

claimed for quashing and setting aside the communication dated 14-9-2001 by which the respondents/complainants were asked to y

work under the EGS.

ba

4. In response to the aforesaid complaint, the stand of the petitioners/employers before the Industrial Court in the written statement om

is that the respondents/complainants were engaged on daily wages as Labourers by the Forest Guard, who himself is a workman and is in the lowest hierarchy in the Forest Department. As and when the work was B

available, the respondents/complainants were called by the concerned Forest Guard on the spot. The continuous employment of the respondents/complainants in the service as daily wagers was denied. It is also denied that there is any permanent nature of work available and it was stated that there is no scope for making the respondents/complainants permanent. The specific stand was taken that ::: Downloaded on - 09/06/2013 18:16:45 ::: 6

wp3967.06.odt

the permanent work was available in the Department and recently, a rt

large number of daily wagers working as Labourers have been made ou

permanent by issuing two Government Resolutions. The respondents/complainants are junior-most and there is neither permanent nature of work nor the funds are available to make them C

permanent in service. The stand was taken that instead of throwing out the respondents/complainants from the job, they are adjusted at various places wherefrom the work is available including that of EGS and out of h

total 25 labourers, 20 labourers have been adjusted at different places. ig

It is also the stand taken that the respondents/complainants have no right to work on NMR basis and there is no question of unfair labour practice. It H

is also the point raised that the Forest Department is not an 'industry', as it is discharging the regal functions. y

5. On behalf of the respondents/complainants, one of the ba

complainants filed an affidavit in lieu of evidence and submitted himself for cross-examination. The petitioners/employers produced the chart of om

attendance of all the respondents/complainants at Exhibit 27 and this was admitted by the witness examined the respondents/complainants, except the period which was shown to be consumed under the EGS. On behalf of B

the petitioners, one Govind Marotrao Bawane, the Range Forest Officer, was examined and he has stated that there is no Van Majdoor in the Development Section, but there are 18 t0 20 Van Majdoors made permanent in the Protection Section. He has stated that the Protection and Development Sections are separate from the year 2000 and the respondents/complainants are working as casual employees from the ::: Downloaded on - 09/06/2013 18:16:45 ::: 7

wp3967.06.odt

year 2000 and they can get work throughout the year at present. rt

ou

6. The Industrial Court in its judgment and order impugned has recorded the finding that none of the respondents/complainants have established that they have completed five years' continuous service, i.e. C

240 days, in each year up to the year 1989. Most of the respondents/complainants have worked under the EGS during the year 1990-91 and they did not complete 240 days in the said year performing h

the normal work. It is the further finding recorded that though the ig

respondents/complainants have completed 240 days under the normal work during the years 1992-93 and 1993-94, they have not fulfilled the H

conditions of the Government Resolution dated 31-1-1996 and, therefore, it cannot be said that they are entitled to be regularized in service as per y

the Government Resolution dated 31-1-1996. However, it has been held that from the years 1992 to 2004, all the respondents/complainants have ba

completed 240 days in each year under the normal work and on completion of five years' continuous service, they were entitled to get om

regularization in the year 1997 and by not sending their names for regularization to the Government, the petitioners/employers have committed the acts of unfair labour practices under Items 6 and 9 of B

Schedule IV of the MRTU & PULP Act. It is also held that by continuing the respondents/complainants as daily wagers for years together and by not regularizing their services as Van Majdoors, on completion of continuous five years' service from the years 1992 to 1997, the petitioners/employers are engaged in a unfair labour practice and hence the direction is given to regularize the respondents/complainants with ::: Downloaded on - 09/06/2013 18:16:45 ::: 8

wp3967.06.odt

effect from 1-1-1997. The complaint of unfair labour practice under rt

Item 5 of Schedule IV of the MRTU & PULP Act has been rejected by the ou

Industrial Court.

7. It is an undisputed position that the C

respondents/complainants are engaged on daily wages and they are being paid with the wages on the NMR. The payment at the minimum rate of wages is also not disputed. The finding of the Industrial Court that h

the respondents/complainants have not completed five years' continuous ig

service, i.e. 240 days, in each year up to 1989, is also not under challenge. During the year 1990-91, the respondents/complainants H

worked under the EGS, that is not disputed, and that the respondents/complainants did not fulfill the criteria for regularization in y

service in terms of the Government Resolution dated 31-1-1996 is also not disputed. It is also not disputed that in terms of the Government ba

Resolution dated 31-1-1996, the labourers working, like the respondents/complainants, have been made permanent by issuing the om

Government Resolution dated 31-1-1996. It is also not the case that the persons junior to the respondents/complainants and working as Labourers are made permanent in service. The argument that there is an unfair B

labour practice under Item 5 of Schedule IV of the MRTU & PULP Act, has been rejected by the Industrial Court. This is not challenged in this petition.

8. This Court has taken a view that the employment under the EGS is not an employment in any industry. In the light of this view, the ::: Downloaded on - 09/06/2013 18:16:45 ::: 9

wp3967.06.odt

Industrial Court has recorded the finding that by transferring the services rt

of the respondents/complainants under the EGS, the ou

petitioners/employers have committed an unfair labour practice under Item 9 of Schedule IV of the MRTU & PULP Act. This finding cannot be sustained. To transfer the employees to work under the EGS to deprive C

them the work in the industry, is not an unfair labour practice under Item 9 of Schedule IV of the MRTU & PULP Act. There is neither any award, settlement, agreement or statutory provision, which either confers h

any right upon the respondents/complainants to get the job other than ig

one under the EGS, nor there is any prohibition to the petitioners/employers to provide the work to the H

respondents/complainants under the EGS. The Industrial Court has, therefore, committed an error in holding that the work performed by the y

respondents/complainants under the EGS has to be treated as a normal work performed in the industry. The provision of Item 9 of Schedule IV of ba

the MRTU & PULP Act is not at all attracted in the present case. om

9. The only question, which requires consideration, is whether the provision of Item 6 of Schedule IV of the MRTU & PULP Act is attracted in the present case or not. The said Item being relevant, is reproduced B

below :

"6. To employ employee as "badlis", casuals or temporaries and to continue them as such for years, with the object of depriving them of the status and privileges of permanent employees."

::: Downloaded on - 09/06/2013 18:16:45 ::: 10

wp3967.06.odt

rt

In the judgment in the case of Chief Conservator of Forests and another ou

v. Jagannath Maruti Kondhare and others, reported in (1996) 2 SCC 293, said Item 6 of Schedule IV of the MRTU & PULP Act fell for consideration of the Apex Court. The Apex Court found that the respondents/workmen C

in the said case were in the employment of the State for a period of five to six years and in each year, they had worked for the period ranging from 100 to 330 days. In the background of such factual position, it was h

held that it would be permissible to draw the interference mentioned in ig

the second part of the Item, if badlis, casuals or temporaries are continued as such for years. In para 22 of the said judgment, it has been H

held that the object of the Act being prevention of certain unfair labour practices, the same would be thwarted or get frustrated if such burden is y

placed on a workman, which he cannot reasonably discharge. In para 29 of the said judgment, it was held that the relief of permanency cannot be ba

denied to the respondents/workmen in the said case because in that case, the Government would be required to pay them the wages meant om

for permanent workers. It was further held that the right to get the wages of permanent workers flows automatically from the relief of regularization. The Apex Court, however, clarified that it is not intended B

that the view taken in the appeals should apply proprio vigore to all casual labourers of the Forest or other Departments of the Government.

10. The learned Single Judge of this Court in his judgment in the case of Divisional Manager v. Chimna Arjun Jadhav, reported in 2001 (Supp.2) Bom.C.R. 671, has taken a view on Item 6 of Schedule IV ::: Downloaded on - 09/06/2013 18:16:45 ::: 11

wp3967.06.odt

of the MRTU & PULP Act that the very nature of the unfair labour practice rt

stipulated therein is that once the Court records a clear finding that the ou

work performed by the employee is of a permanent nature and perennial one, then as a necessary corollary, it is the duty of the Court to issue such directions including the direction to the employer engaged in the C

commission of the said unfair labour practice to create a sanctioned post so as to give status and privileges of permanent employees to the workman. It has further been held that there cannot be any hesitation to h

hold that the Industrial Court in exercise of powers under Section 30 of ig

the MRTU & PULP Act should not be deterred by the fact that there is no sanctioned post when the work performed by the employee is found to H

be of perennial nature and permanent one. It has been held that the Court is empowered to direct the sanctioning of posts so as to give the y

status and benefits of permanency to the employee. ba

11. Thereafter Item 6 of Schedule IV of the MRTU & PULP Act has been considered by the Apex Court in the judgment in the case of om

Mahatma Phule Agricultural University v. Nasik Zilla Sheth Kamgar Union, reported in (2001) 7 SCC 346. After quoting Item 6 of Schedule IV of the MRTU & PULP Act in para 14 of the said judgment, the Apex Court noted B

that the High Court recorded the finding that as there were no posts, the employees could not be made permanent. It has further been held that once the High Court comes to such a conclusion that for lack of posts, the employees could not be made permanent, how could it then go on to hold that they were continued as badlis, casuals or temporaries with the object of depriving the status and privileges of permanent employees. It ::: Downloaded on - 09/06/2013 18:16:45 ::: 12

wp3967.06.odt

noted that the complaint was not against the State Government, but it rt

was against the University and the inaction on the part of the State ou

Government to create posts would not mean that an unfair labour practice has been committed by the University. The Apex Court, therefore, set aside the finding of the High Court that the case was C

squarely covered by Item 6 of Schedule IV of the MRTU & PULP Act and accordingly set aside the judgment of the High Court. h

12. The Division Bench of this Court in its judgment in the case of ig

State of Maharashtra and Anr. v. Pandurang Sitaram Jadhav, reported in 2008 III CLR 151, has considered Item 6 of Schedule IV of the MRTU & H

PULP Act. It was a case of daily wagers in service of the appellants for a period running between 12 and 20 years. These daily wagers had y

approached the Industrial Court invoking Items 5, 6 and 9 of Schedule IV of the MRTU & PULP Act. The Industrial Court recorded the finding on ba

Item 6 that there does not exist sanctioned vacant posts and it is for the Dairy Manager to send proposal to the Government for sanction of the om

said posts by the Government. The Industrial Court expected the Dairy Manager to forward a proposal to the Government and seek sanction to the posts with a view to accommodate the daily wagers. The direction B

was issued to grant permanency to all the complainants from the date they completed 240 days in service and to extend all benefits of permanency. The learned Single judge rejected the contention that in the absence of sanctioned posts and available vacancies to accommodate the daily wagers, issuance of direction by the Industrial Court to grant permanency is contrary to the law laid down by the Apex ::: Downloaded on - 09/06/2013 18:16:45 ::: 13

wp3967.06.odt

Court in the case of Secretary, State of Karnataka & ors. v. Umadevi & rt

ors., reported in 2006 II CLR 261 SC. It was held that the Apex Court was ou

not dealing with an industrial establishment, to which the Industrial Employment (Standing Orders) Act applied in Umadevi's case. It was this judgment of the learned Single Judge, which was the subject-matter of C

challenge before the Division Bench in the Letters Patent Appeal.

13. The Division Bench of this Court in Pandurang Jadhav's case, h

cited supra, has taken a view that when there are no sanctioned posts ig

and vacancies in existence, the claim for permanency could not have been granted by the Industrial Court. It was held that no finding was H

recorded either by the Industrial or by the learned Single Judge that the respondents/complainants were appointed in adherence to the rules y

regarding appointment. It was not even a claim of the complainants that they were appointed in adherence to the procedure prescribed for ba

appointment. It was held that in the absence of existence of sanctioned vacant posts, it would be wholly unjust to direct the grant of permanency. om

It was further held that the provisions of the Model Standing Orders by themselves cannot and does not confer any right of permanency unless and until the other two pre-requisites are satisfied, i.e. (1) appointment B

being in conformity with the rules relating to appointment, and (2) permanent sanctioned vacant posts being in existence.

14. In the another judgment of the Apex Court in the case of Maharashtra State Road Transport Corporation and another v. Casteribe Rajya Parivahan Karmachari Sanghatana, reported in (2009) 8 SCC 556, ::: Downloaded on - 09/06/2013 18:16:45 ::: 14

wp3967.06.odt

the Apex Court was dealing with Item 6 of Schedule IV of the MRTU & rt

PULP Act. In para 41 of the said judgment, it has been held that there is ou

no doubt that creation of posts is not within the domain of judicial functions which obviously pertains to the executive. It has further been held that the status of permanency cannot be granted by the Court C

where no such posts exist and that executive functions and powers with regard to the creation of posts cannot be arrogated by the courts. In the background of the undisputed factual position that there existed the h

posts of Cleaners in the Corporation, as stated in para 44 of the said ig

judgment, the Apex Court granted relief to the complainants in exercise of the powers conferred by Article 142 of the Constitution of India. H

15. It is not necessary to consider all other judgments cited by y

the learned counsels in support of their rival claims, as the judgments rendered under Item 6 of Schedule IV by the Apex Court and by this ba

Court are available. The heavy reliance is placed by the learned counsel for the respondents/complainants on the judgment of the learned Single om

Judge of this Court in Chimna Arjun Jadhav's case, cited supra. This judgment is delivered on the basis of the law laid down by the Apex Court in Jagannath Maruti Kondhare's case. In the judgment in the case of B

Jagannath Maruti Kondhare's case, cited supra, the Apex Court, at two places in paras 28 and 29, has clarified that the decision is not intended to apply proprio vigore to all casual labourers of the Forest and other Departments of the State Government and the claims of the casual employees for permanency or for higher pay, shall have to be decided on merits of their own case. It is not the law laid down by the Apex Court in ::: Downloaded on - 09/06/2013 18:16:45 ::: 15

wp3967.06.odt

Jagannath Maruti Kondhare's case that if the work performed by the rt

employee is of permanent nature and perennial one, then as a corollary, ou

it is the duty of the Court to issue such directions including the direction to the employer to create or sanction the post so as to give the status and privileges of permanent employee to the workman. After the C

decision in Jagannath Maruti Kondhare's case, the two decisions of the Apex Court - one in Mahatma Phule Agricultural University's case and the other in Casteribe Rajya Parivahan Karmchari Sanghatana's case - and h

the decision of the Division Bench of this Court in Pandurang Sitaram ig

Jadhav's case, which are all cited supra, take the view on Item 6 of Schedule IV of the MRTU & PULP Act that the status and privileges of H

permanent employee cannot be granted by the Court where no such posts exist and that the executive functions and powers with regard to y

the creation of the posts cannot be arrogated by the Court. It has also been held that once the Court comes to the conclusion that for lack of ba

posts the employees could not be made permanent, then how could the Court then go on to hold that the employees were continued as badlis, om

casuals or temporaries with the object of depriving the status and privileges of permanent employee. The argument that the grant of status and privileges of permanent employee is different from directing B

to make the employees permanent, has also been rejected in the case of Mahatma Phule Agricultural University by the Apex Court. In the another decision of the Apex Court in M.P. Agro Industries Development Corpn. Ltd. and another v. S.C. Pandey, reported in (2006) 2 SCC 716, it has been held that the appointment of a daily wager is not an appointment to any post; a daily-wager does not hold any post, and merely because a ::: Downloaded on - 09/06/2013 18:16:45 ::: 16

wp3967.06.odt

daily wager completes 240 days in service in a year, is not ipso facto rt

entitled to regularization [Also See : Hindustan Aeronautics Ltd. v. Dan ou

Bahadur Singh and others, reported in (2007) 6 SCC 207]. The Division Bench of this Court in Pandurang Sitaram Jadhav's case has held that the Model Standing Orders by themselves cannot and does not confer any C

right of permanency unless and until the other two pre-requisites are satisfied, viz. (1) appointment being in conformity with the rules relating to appointment, and (2) permanent sanctioned vacant posts being in h

existence. ig

16. In view of the aforesaid position, the decisions in Mahatma H

Phule Agricultural University's case, M.P. Agro Industries Development Corpn. Ltd.'s case, Hindustan Aeronautics Ltd.'s case and Casteribe Rajya y

Parivahan karmchari Sanghatana's case delivered by the Apex Court, and the decision in Pandurang Sitaram Jadhav's case delivered by the ba

Division Bench of this Court, will have to be preferred as against the decision of the learned Single Judge of this Court in Chimna Arjun om

Jadhav's case. There is neither any pleading nor any material placed on record to show that permanent sanctioned posts/vacancies are available to grant the status and privileges of permanent employees to the B

respondents/complainants. The finding of the Industrial Court that the respondents/complainants were working from the year 1992 continuously and in each year they have completed 240 days' continuous service, will not by itself confer upon the respondents/complainants any right to get the status and privileges of permanent employees in the absence of permanent sanctioned posts. The Industrial Court has, therefore, ::: Downloaded on - 09/06/2013 18:16:45 ::: 17

wp3967.06.odt

committed an error in granting status and privileges of permanent rt

employees to the respondents/complainants. ou

17. Even if it is to be held that the burden shifts upon the petitioners/employers to show that the work of perennial or permanent C

nature is not available, the evidence of the witness examined by the petitioners/employers is material. The statement in cross-examination of this witness to the effect that the respondents/complainants are working h

as casual employees from the year 2000 and they can get the work ig

throughout the year at present, will have to be looked into in the background of the undisputed factual aspect that the number of daily H

wagers working continuously for a period of five years prior to 1-1-1994 were made permanent by creating posts. The stand of the y

petitioners/employers is that the respondents/complainants are accommodated only for the purpose of providing them employment ba

wherever it is available. It is not the case that the persons working on daily wages junior to the respondents/complainants have been om

regularized or made permanent in service. The finding of the Industrial Court that the respondents/complainants are not entitled to the benefits of permanency in terms of the Government Resolution dated 31-1-1996, B

has not been challenged. In view of this, the Industrial Court has committed an error in holding that by continuing the respondents/complainants as daily wagers for year together and by not regularizing their services on completion of continuous five years' service from 1992 to 1997, the petitioners/employers are engaged in an unfair labour practice as contained in Item 6 of Schedule IV of the MRTU & PULP ::: Downloaded on - 09/06/2013 18:16:45 ::: 18

wp3967.06.odt

Act.

rt

ou

18. In the decision of the Division Bench of this Court in Pandurang Sitaram Jadhav's case, the Industrial Court had recorded the finding on Item 6 of Schedule IV of the MRTU & PULP Act that there does C

not exist a sanctioned vacant post and it is for the Dairy Manager to send the proposal to the Government for sanction of the said post. The Industrial Court expected the Dairy Manager to forward the proposal to h

the Government and seek sanction to the post with a view to ig

accommodate the daily wagers. This Court set aside such finding recorded by the Industrial Court. In the present case also, a similar H

direction has been issued by the Industrial Court holding that by not sending the names of the respondents/complainants to the Government y

for regularization, the unfair labour practices under Items 6 and 9 of Schedule IV of the MRTU & PULP Act have been committed by the ba

petitioners/employers. Accordingly, the direction has been given to forward the proposal for regularization of the respondents/complainants om

in service to the State Government within a period of fifteen days so as to enable the Government to take decision thereon and to comply with the order of the Court. Such a direction is clearly contrary to the decision of B

the Division Bench of this Court. The same cannot, therefore, be sustained.

19. In the result, the petition succeeds. The judgment and order dated 13-7-2005 passed by the Industrial Court, Bhandara, in Complaint (ULPA) No.55 of 2001 is hereby quashed and set aside. The complaint ::: Downloaded on - 09/06/2013 18:16:45 ::: 19

wp3967.06.odt

(ULPA) filed by the respondents/complainants is dismissed. rt

ou

20. Rule is made absolute in above terms. No order as to costs. Judge.

C

Pdl.

h

ig

H

y

ba

om

B

::: Downloaded on - 09/06/2013 18:16:45 :::