Indian Kanoon - Search engine for Indian Law

4) Mr. Patil, the learned counsel appearing for the Petitioner-University and the College would submit that the learned Member of the Industrial Court has grossly erred in directing conferment of benefits on par with 'permanent daily rated wage workers' to the Respondents. He would submit that there is no such concept as 'permanent daily rated wage workers'. He would submit that the Respondent did not perform same duties and responsibilities as that of permanent Class IV employees of the University and the College. That no evidence was led to prove similarity in the duties and responsibilities. That engagement of the Respondent-Employees was not continuous, and they were intermittently utilised as per the exigencies of work. He would submit that no right was created in favour of Respondent-Employees to claim permanency merely on the strength of completion of 240 days of service. He would rely upon judgment of Division Bench of this Court in Municipal Council Tirora & Anr. Vs. Tulsidas Baliram Bindhade1 in support of his contention that mere completion of 240 days of service in a State Instrumentality does not create a right to claim permanency in service.