Document Fragment View

Matching Fragments

11 On the other hand, Mr.Shekdar, learned counsel appearing for the Respondent/Complainant, submitted that this is Writ Petition under Articles 226 and 227 of the Constitution of India. This Writ Petition is not a further appeal challenging the orders of the Courts below. In writ jurisdiction, it is not possible to disturb and alter the concurrent findings of fact unless they are demonstrated to be perverse. In the instant case, no perversity has been demonstrated. On the other hand, it is clear from the record that the Petitioners employed the Respondent on permanent post. In the year 1997, Satara Division of the Petitioners was converted into Pune Division and accordingly, the Respondent was transferred to Pune Division. Till the date of illegal termination, namely, 01.12.2002 the Respondent had worked with the Petitioners every year for more than 240 days on daily wages of Rs.65/- per day. When the Respondent requested that the Petitioners should make him permanent and give him benefit of permanency, that there was oral termination on 01.12.2002 without any reason. This is a clear case of an unfair labour practice because the Respondent was working as a regular employee. He was not given benefits of seniority, but the persons who were junior to him were made permanent. Once the witnesses examined by the Petitioners have admitted that the Respondent was working since 1991 at Satara and that the Respondent was appointed by the Petitioners as Office Attendant, then, having worked for more than 15 years, it is clear that the Petitioners *9* wp.3208.3213.11.sxw denied him all service benefits. This is only because the Petitioners were under an impression that the Respondent being temporary and employed for a particular period. Thus, it is clear case of unfair labour practice and when the Corporation established by the State is indulging in such acts, then, all the more this Court should not interfere in writ jurisdiction. Further, the Industrial Court has not granted complete reliefs and directed the Petitioners to regularize the services of the Respondent w.e.f. 01.01.2006 by giving notional increment without computing actual monthly benefits from 01.01.2006 to 31.10.2010. The Industrial Court further directed that the Petitioners should fix the Respondent in proper pay scale by giving notional benefits from the year 2006 and pay the corrected salary i.e. after re-verification of wages w.e.f. 01.11.2010 and the remaining prayers were rejected. This is because junior employees, namely, Mr.Pise, Mr.Lipare and Mr.Nanaware who are appointed after the Respondent have been made permanent. The Writ Petition be, therefore, dismissed.

17 The Courts below have concluded that the Petitioners have appointed the Respondent as Office Attendant, but they gave him every type of work. Once the Petitioners do not deny that the Respondent has worked for 240 days in every year and that fact is evident by the pay slips, so also, designation and they are not sure as to whether, the Petitioners appointed the Respondent as temporary hand or daily wage worker, then, the inference drawn against the Petitioners cannot be said to be vitiated by an error apparent on the face of record or perversity. It may be that the Petitioners have established their Units and were undertaking some Social Forestry and Greenery work for public bodies under a contract, but for demonstrating and proving that the Respondent was engaged by them only for this work and no other work or regular work of their establishment, something more was necessary and by such statements, they cannot succeed in dislodging the Respondent's case. The clear fact emerging from the record is that their Divisions at Satara and Pune have been made functional in the same year. Even from a reading of their *12* wp.3208.3213.11.sxw memo of revision application, it is apparent that they do not dispute that there was a division at Satara and that was established in December, 1970 and it was closed, according to them, in the year 1997. However, they admit that in the year 1997 itself they engaged the services of the Respondent for the contract with PCMC. However, when they state that he was appointed temporarily and was assigned the work under a contract job, then, they ought to have proved that the Respondent has performed the duties all throughout on this understanding with full knowledge that his status cannot be equated with permanent and regular employees of the Petitioner Corporation. However, while meeting his case of illegal oral termination, all this has been pleaded. If this was the pleading, it must be certainly based on some documents. However, it is apparent that they have not produced any documents which would reinforce this understanding and temporary arrangement as between them and the Respondent. On the other hand, in the same breath, they admit the contents of the pay slips that have been produced on record and do not falsify the claim of the Respondent that he has worked for 240 days in a year.

21 Mr.Malpathak, however, urged that there is companion Writ Petition which is numbered as Writ Petition No.3213/2011 in which the order of the Industrial Court as far as the above directions are concerned, is challenged. On perusal of Writ Petition No.3213/2011 with the able assistance of the learned counsel appearing for the parties, leaves me in no manner of doubt that the reasoning, upon which the ultimate direction has been issued, is consistent with the pleadings of the Respondent in Complaint (ULP) No.416/2005. Therein after setting out the allegations which are common to both complaints and specifically stating that having worked continuously for 10 years and 11 months more, so also, seeking permanency benefits orally as well as in writing from 1997 till the date of oral termination, that the same have been denied and this is unfair labour practice. It was stated that because of the oral termination effected on 01.12.2002, the complaint of unfair labour practice which is subject matter of Writ Petition No.3208/2011 was filed. Therein the Respondent applied for interim reliefs. However, the application Exhibit U-2 for interim reliefs was dismissed on 24.01.2003. The Respondent being aggrieved and dissatisfied by the said order filed a revision application under section 44 of the MRTU & PULP Act, 1971 being Revision Application (ULP) No.33/2003, that revision application was decided on 16.06.2003 and the Industrial Court/ revisional court directed the *15* wp.3208.3213.11.sxw Petitioners herein to continue the Respondent's services. The Petitioners did not continue him as Office Attendant/ Assistant, but posted him as Watchman and allowed him to report from 12.08.2003. They have not paid him the wages of Office Attendant/ Assistant which was at Rs.83/- per day in 1998-99 and thereafter, it was enhanced to Rs.87/- per day in 1999-2000. The Petitioners continued him on daily wage of Rs.65/- per day only. Thus, they continued to exploit him by denying him all benefits of permanency and deprived him of his monetary entitlement. Even when that complaint was being tried, it is apparent that the Respondent stepped into the witness box and reiterated all the allegations in relation to his service. The Petitioners now argue that the Respondent's version throughout was that when Satara Division was closed and Pune Division became functional, the Respondent approached the Petitioners for giving him work of temporary nature on daily wages and that is how they employed him. This is the stand of the Petitioners in their Written Statement filed in Complaint (ULP) No.416/2005. However, this version in the Written Statement has not been proved. On the other hand, what the Member, Industrial Court has observed in his order dated 10.11.2010 in Complaint (ULP) No.416/2005 is as under:-

22 In these circumstances, it is not as if the Courts below have overlooked or ignored any principle of law and the constitutional guarantee of equality in public employment. This is not a case where there was no regular post or no regular work. All throughout the case is that the appointment is of Office Attendant/Assistant, it may be that the Respondent went on reporting at Pune Division or wherever the work was available and presently he is at Jawahar-Dahanu. It is not as if this is an admission that there is no regular work or that there is no regular post and therefore, benefits of permanency and regularization cannot be claimed. I am not in agreement with Mr.Malpathak that the Courts below have, while taking cognizance of the complaint of unfair labour practice, virtually directed creation of post and providing regular work to the Respondent by creating a post for him at particular station/unit. There is absolutely nothing on record to indicate that such direction has been issued or that direction issued would amount to directing the Petitioners to create any post for the Respondent and make substantive appointment *18* wp.3208.3213.11.sxw therein. The pleadings are in relation to unfair labour practice on the part of the Petitioners and while holding that the practices adopted were illegal and unfair, it was directed by the Courts below that the benefits of permanency ought to be given to the workman who has put in more than 15 years of service and that oral termination of his services was vitiated in law. If on the basis of the material on record, it is evident that the Respondent has put in more than 15 years of services and his case that he has completed service of 240 days in every year, is not falsified, then, directing that he should be reinstated in service with back wages, and modifying that direction considering that the Respondent is still in service of the Petitioners, does not amount to infringing or acting contrary to the constitutional guarantee of equality in public employment and the mandate flowing from Articles 14 and 16 of the Constitution of India, which is the main plank of the argument before me. Having found that the Courts below acted within their limits while adjudicating the complaints of unfair labour practice and complied with the principles of labour and industrial jurisprudence, then, all the more the argument of Mr.Malpathak cannot be accepted.