Indian Kanoon - Search engine for Indian Law

2. Briefly stated, facts of the case are that the Government of Maharashtra had declared a policy for encouraging studies in Marathi literature and other fields by taking suitable measures. In his speech made on 6 July 1960, the then Governor of Maharashtra had made an announcement that the State would declare policy for encouragement of research in the fields of literature, history and culture of Maharashtra. Accordingly, the State Government decided to establish State Board for Literature and Culture and accordingly issued Government Resolution dated 19 November 1960, by which State k 5/24 1 wp 1284.02 J as.doc Board of Literature and Culture was established for initial tenure of 5 years. The Government Resolution provided for functions of the State Board and various other related matters. One of the functions of the State Board was to initiate assist and undertake scheme for preparation and publication in Marathi language of different literature such as bibliographies, encyclopedia, dictionaries etc. Towards performance of its function for compiling encyclopedia, the State Board decided to compile a Marathi Vishwakosha. The State Government issued Government Resolution dated 6 June 1963 thereby authorizing the Secretary of the State Board to secure as Visiting Editors services of upto 6 senior professors, research scholars, etc. attached to various universities/colleges for expert writing and other work in the Vishwakosha Unit during vacation times or otherwise as may be available. The Government Resolution provided for payment of honorarium of Rs.25/- for each full day of actual work. It appears that the State Government later decided to reorganize the State Board and to bifurcate the same. Accordingly, Government Resolution dated 28 November 1980 was issued thereby establishing Maharashtra Rajya Marathi Vishwakosha Nirmiti Mandal, (Vishwakosha Mandal) with effect from 1 December 1980, with its headquarters at Wai, District Satara. The Vishwakosha Mandal was initially established for a period of three years. After separation of Vishwakosha Mandal from the ambit of State Board, the reorganized Maharashtra State Board for Literature and Culture was reconstituted by the same Government Resolution dated 28 November 1980.

7. Dr. Warunjikar, the learned counsel appearing for the Petitioners would submit that the Industrial Court has erred in dismissing the Complaints filed by the Petitioners. He would submit that once the status of Respondent-Board is accepted as industry, the status of Petitioners as workmen ought to have been upheld. He k 8/24 1 wp 1284.02 J as.doc would invite my attention to findings recorded by the Industrial Court in paragraph 5(ii) of the judgment that the work performed by the Petitioners conforms to the definition of the term 'workmen' under section 2(s) of the Industrial Disputes Act, 1947. He would submit that once Respondent Board is held as industry and Petitioners are held as workmen, the Industrial Court erred in holding that there is no employer-employee relationship between the parties. He would submit that Petitioners have been working continuously with the Respondent-Board since the year 1982 and it cannot be contended that they are not employees of the Board. That Petitioners performed work of regular nature thereby raising an inference that they are employees of the Respondent-Board. That the Industrial Court has erred in laying emphasis on the language in which the appointment orders are couched. That the Petitioners though labelled as Visiting Editors, performed work of stenographers, typists, tracers, etc. He would submit that mere nomenclature given by the Respondent-Board to wages paid to Petitioners cannot determine their status and even a person drawing honorarium can also be treated as an employee. He would submit that there is direct admission given by the witnesses of the Respondent-Board about completion of 240 days of service by Petitioners. He would also take me through various statements filed on record of the Industrial Court for demonstrating that Petitioners have completed more than 240 days of service in each of the years. He would therefore submit that Petitioners deserve to treated as regular employees of the Respondent-Board considering continuous and uninterrupted services rendered by them with the Board during past several decades. He would submit that the Vishwakosh Mandal is still functioning as it carrying on permanent work of compiling information and it has now undertaken the work of compiling encyclopedia for children (Kumar Vishwakosh). He would submit that k 9/24 1 wp 1284.02 J as.doc information relating to encyclopedia requires updation of information and it cannot be contended that the activities of the Vishwakosh Mandal can come to an end. He would also submit that the Respondent-Board has several other regular employees on establishment and that therefore Petitioners also deserve to be made permanent. Dr. Warunjikar accordingly pray for setting aside the impugned judgment and order of the Industrial Court and for allowing the Complaints filed by the Petitioners.

10. Mr. Pakale would submit that the activities of Vishwakosha Mandal have otherwise come to an end after preparation of Vishwakosha and it is otherwise not possible to accommodate Petitioners in services. He would pray for dismissal of the Petition.

11. Rival contentions of the parties now fall for my consideration.

12. The manner in which Vishwakosha Mandal came to be established has been discussed above. Its establishment has it seeds in Government Resolution dated 19 November 1960, whereby initially State Board for Literature and Culture was established for a tenure of five years and one of the functions it was supposed to perform was compilation of encyclopedia. It appears that the State Board for Literature and Culture undertook the task of compilation of Vishwakosha and accordingly State Government permitted the Board to secure services of senior professors, research scholars etc. from various Universities and Colleges as Visiting Editors for expert writing and other work for compilation of Vishwakosha. However, procuring services of Visiting Editors was not to be confused with 1 2016 (6) Mh.L.J. 867 2 2016 (3) AllMR 113 3 Writ Petition No.8801 of 2003 decided on 26 June 2024 k 11/24 1 wp 1284.02 J as.doc appointments as employees, as their engagement was to be done only during vacation times or otherwise as per their availability. This is clear from paragraph 2 of the Government Resolution dated 6 June 1963 which reads thus:

22. The Industrial Court has recorded following findings for holding that the employer-employee relationship does not exist between the parties:

"5. REASONS:

i) It is the case of the complainants that they have worked more than 240 days continuously in each year, so they are entitled for permanency.

They were appointed as temporary employees on daily-wage basis, so they are employees of the Respondents. Though these complainants are entitled for permanency, still with an intention to deprive all these complainants from the benefits of the permanency such as provident fund, gratuity, pension etc; these complainants are kept years together as temporary employees. To the contrary, it is the defence of the Respondent that these complainants are not employees of the respondents. They were not appointed as temporary or daily wage employees. These complainants are experts in their fields. These complainants were requested to extend their cooperation in compilation of Vishwakosh. They were issued request letters. No fixed wage scale was given to them. No fixed days in each month were specified. They were allowed to do the work for the days mentioned in their request letters in each month as per their convenience. They were paid honorarium, so due to completion of 240 days continuous service, these complainants are not entitled for permanency. To adjudicate the above controversy, I have gone carefully through the oral and documentary evidence adduced by the parties. The complainants have not approached with correct and true facts by way of narrating in their complaints. These complainants have stated in their complaints that they were appointed as daily-wager employees and as temporary employees. They have suppressed material facts. They have not mentioned in their complaints that they were getting honorarium, though they were knowing that these complainants were paid honorarium for the work done by them. The alleged appointment orders are filed on record. This is an admitted document by both the parties. The alleged appointment letter which is as per the say of the Respondent is a request letter will throw much light on the fact of the engagement of these complainants to do the work. It is evident from this request letter that it is not an appointment order, it is a request letter sent to the complainants. This letter starts such as "S. N. V. V." (Saprem Namaskar Vinanti Vishesh). This opening of the letter shows that it was a request from the respondents to these complainants to extend their assistance for compilation of Vishwakosha. It was a discretion of the Complainant to accept or reject the request of the respondents. From the k 19/24 1 wp 1284.02 J as.doc above wording of the above letter the intention of the Respondent was not to appoint the complainants as an employee. An inference cannot be drawn that by such above referred invitation, these complainants were appointed as employees of the Respondent as temporary of daily-wager employees. These complainants cannot become as daily-wager employees because these complainants were not paid daily-wage or rate of the daily wage was not fixed. They were paid only honorarium, so also these complainants cannot be treated as daily-wager employees. Furthermore facts also clearly indicate that the contract of the employer and the employee between the present respondents and the present complainants was not in existence. It is evident from these request letters in pursuance to which the services of these complainants were availed, that no fixed days of working were prescribed in these request letters. They were requested to extend their cooperation to do the work for ten to twenty days in each month. No days were fixed in each month. It means that these complainants were requested to do the work for the days on which it was possible for them to make themselves available to the respondents for doing the work for the respondents. It is also evident that the voluminous work for the respondents. It is also evident that the voluminous work such as publication of twenty parts having thousands of pages is to be done with the help of thousands of experts. This Encyclopedia requires help of thousands of the experts from every field. For publication of this Encyclopedia so many experts about the thousands have worked as Visiting Editors on honorarium basis. The complainants in their evidence have admitted that they were paid honorarium and as like them other several persons have worked as Visiting Editors. The respondents have filed list of other Visiting Editors who have worked on honorarium basis. The terms and the conditions for other Visiting Editors were also same and similar to the terms and the conditions of these complainants. All these persons who have worked as Visiting Editors cannot be given permanency. From the above discussion, I come to the conclusion that these complainants and respondents are not having relationship as employee and employer.