Bombay High Court
Baburao Shrirang Sapkal And Ors. vs The In-Charge Zonal Manager, Mah. State ... on 28 September, 1989
Equivalent citations: [1989(59)FLR746], (1993)IIILLJ634BOM
Author: Sujata Manohar
Bench: Sujata Manohar
JUDGMENT Sujata Manohar, J.
1. This Writ Petition pertains to 12 complaints filed by the workers of the Maharashtra State-Co-operative Cotton Growers Marketing Federation Ltd., the 1st respondent herein under Section 28(1) of the Maharashtra Recognition of Trade Unions and Prevention of Unfair Labour Practices Act, 1971. The workers are the petitioners herein. It is their case that they have been working with the 1st Respondent-Corporation since its inception and even prior thereto, with the predecessor in title of the 1st respondent, viz. the Maharashtra State Co-operative Marketing Federation Limited, which is respondent No. 3 herein. Their services were treated as those of seasonal workers by the respondents. Accordingly letters to termination were issued to the petitioners terminating their services as from 31st December, 1988. This notice of termination was challenged in the complaints as illegal and contrary to law.
2. The Government of Maharashtra appointed the Maharashtra State Co-operative Marketing Federation Limited as the Chief agent in the Cotton Monopoly Schemes under the provisions of Section 42 of the Maharashtra Raw Cotton (Procurement, Processing and Marketing) Act, 1971. In February, 1984 the Government took away the activity of levy or procurement of cotton from the Marketing Federation and assigned it to another Federation viz. the Maharashtra State Co-operative Cotton Growers' Marketing Federation which is the 1st respondent. By various orders passed in 1984, which I need not go into, the permanent employees of the Marketing Federation engaged in the Cotton Monopoly Scheme were transferred to or absorbed in the 1st respondents that apart from their regular employees they also require seasonal employees who are required during the cotton procurement season only in connection with their work. The petitioners, according to the respondents, are such seasonal employees who are employed from year to year only during the cotton procurement season.
3. In respect of the employees of the Co-operative Marketing Federation an Award bearing No. 213/73 was given which is known as the Patankar Award under which the Marketing Federation has been directed to make permanent such of the workers who have put in continuous service of 240 days in a year. According to the petitioners since the 1st respondent Corporation is successor in title to the Marketing Federation this award continues to apply to the employees of the 1st respondent - corporation also. They contend that they have put in continuous service of more than 240 days in a year. Hence they must be considered as permanent employees of the 1st respondent - corporation and their services should not be terminated as has been done.
4. In the complaint which they have filed, they applied to the Labour Court for interim relief which was granted by the Labour Court. It directed that status quo should be granted in favour of the complaints. In other words, they were to be continued in service. A Revision Application was filed by the respondents before the Industrial Court at Kolhapur being Revision Application ULP No. 27 of 1989. This Revision Application was allowed by the Industrial Court which came to the conclusion that prima facie it appears that the services of the petitioners were seasonal. It held that prima facie the management had a right to terminate their services after the season had come to an end. It however, considered the termination of petitioner's service by the 1st respondent during the pendency of the revision application as wrong. It, therefore, ordered that the petitioners shall be deemed to be in service until their services are terminated by proper termination order after the order of the Industrial Court, that is, 11th May, 1989. It also expedited the hearing of the main complaint.
5. In the present petition, the petitioners have challenged the order of the Industrial Court. The Petitioners strongly relied upon the judgment of Vaze in Writ Petition Nos. 620 of 1986 to 624 of 1986 delivered on 9th/10th March, 1987 which was upheld by the Supreme Court by its judgment and order dated 11th October, 1988. These writ petitions pertain to 19 employees of the 1st respondents who, according to the petitioners, are in an identical situation. The learned Judge of this Court in his judgment of 9th/10th March, 1987 held that the Patankar Award which was given in respect of the Marketing Federation would apply to the 1st Respondent Federation also. The learned Judge relied upon an ad hoc seniority list produced by the petitioners and held that they must be treated as having put in more than 240 days of service in a year, and they should be treated as permanent. He said the documentary evidence about that Seniority List produced by them shows that they have put in atleast more than 10 years of service which obviously exceeds 240 days. This judgment was upheld by the Supreme Court which observed that the High Court had rightly directed the appellant and the Marketing Federation to process the cases of the respondents on the basis that they had put in more than 240 days of service and to grant them all the benefits under the Circular letter dated January 18, 1985. The present petitioners also relied upon the same seniority list which is annexed as Exhibit 'H' to their affidavit in rejoinder. They pointed out that the 19 petitioners in the earlier writ petitioner are also on the same seniority list. This Seniority List which is entitled "Seniority List of Temporary Servants 1986-87" shows the date from which each of the employees who was employed, his designation, date of birth and educational qualification.
6. Mr. Kulkarni learned counsel for the petitioners, pointed out that this seniority list clearly shows that the petitioners were in continuous services from the dates mentioned against their names. He also relied upon the letters of appointment issued in respect of each of the petitioners from year to year in which the salary scale is mentioned. He therefore contends that this indicates continuity of service. The respondents on the other hand contend that the seniority list has been prepared merely for the purpose of re-employment of petitioners who are seasonal workers from year to year on the commencement of the season. They also contend that although the benefit of a salary scale plus proportionate benefits of services are granted to the petitioners and other seasonal workers they are nevertheless seasonal workers and have not worked for more than 240 days.
7. It is not in dispute that the nature of employment of the present petitioners is similar to the nature of employment of the petitioners in the earlier petitions. Similar contention were raised by the respondents in respect of those petitioners also. In other words even in the earlier petition the respondents had contended that those petitioners were only seasonal employees. In these circumstances atleast at the interim stage looking to the judgment the High Court and the Supreme Court some protection ought to have been given to the petitioners. It seems that in the earlier petitions the respondents had not produced any detailed material to show that those petitioners had throughout their employment worked for less than 240 days in a year.
8. In the present case, however, the respondents have annexed to their affidavit in-reply as Exhibit-2 a detailed chart in respect of each of the petitioners, giving the dates of employment and termination of each of the petitioners from year to year commencing from 1974-75 upto date. On the basis of these particulars Mr. Singh, learned Advocate for the respondents contends that none of the petitioners have in any year worked for more than 240 days and hence the benefit of the earlier judgment should not be extended to them. These dates are challenged by Dr. Kulkarni, learned Counsel for the petitioners. He has filed a summary chart which is annexed as Exhibit 'C' to the petition in which, according to him each of the petitioners is shown to have put in more than 240 days of continuous service in the seasons 1979-80, 1980-81 or 1982-83 as the case may be. This statement according to him has been prepared on the basis of the petitioner's own records and letters of appointment and termination. These disputed facts will obviously have to be gone into by the labour court while deciding the complaints. In the meanwhile in view of the seniority list and the earlier judgments of the High Court and the Supreme Court at the interlocutory stage atleast the petitioners require protection until this disputed question is decided.
9. I am informed by learned Advocates for both the sides that for the current season all the petitioners have been issued letters of appointment. It seems that the season in the area (Phalton) continues upto the end of December each year as can be seen from the previous letters of termination. The hearing of the complaint is, therefore, expedited and the Labour Court is directed to dispose of these complaints as expediously as possible, preferably before 31st December, 1989. Till the disposal of the complaint, however, the respondents will maintain status quo.
Rule is made absolute accordingly. There will be no order as to costs.