AI Structured Summary
Not yet generated for this judgment
Judgment
The petitioner challenges the order rendered by the Industrial Court, Jalgaon, in Complaint (ULP) No. 53 of 2005 dated 16.04.2007, allowing the complaint with finding that the petitioner-Corporation committed unfair labour practices under Items 5, 6, 9, and 10 of Schedule IV of the Maharashtra Recognition of Trade Unions and Prevention of Unfair Labour Practices Act, 1971 (for short, "MRTU & PULP Act").
The Central Government floated a scheme to provide basic amenities to the urban poor persons. On 24.12.1993, the petitioner published a public notice inviting the applications for the appointment of 'Community Organizer' on contractual basis for a temporary period of six months, at a monthly honorarium of Rs.1,500/-.
Preceded by the same, on 14.01.1994, the complainant was appointed as a Community Adviser. Temporary appointment was extended continuously coterminous with the scheme.
Thereafter, the scheme was converted into the "Swarna Jayanti Shahari Rojgar Yojana” with effect from 01.12.1997. In the year 2005, the complainant filed a complaint. The petitioner resisted, contending that the original complainant worked under a scheme, on honorarium basis and was not a regular employee of the Municipal Corporation.
The learned Industrial Court, Jalgaon, held that the original complainant was entitled to the benefits of the Government Resolution dated 23.12.1991 from the date of initial appointment, and also held that the Municipal Corporation guilty of unfair labour practices. Aggrieved by this order, the petitioner has filed the writ petition.
Learned counsel for the petitioner submits that individuals working under such temporary schemes have no vested right to claim permanency or regularization. The judgment and order under challenge is contrary to the settled principles laid down by the Hon’ble Apex Court. The complainant, being a temporary, honorarium-based worker, cannot claim a regular pay scale. The initial advertisement and interview call expressly indicated that the engagement was on an honorarium basis. The complainant having accepted these terms and joined the services. As such, it is not open for employee to contend contrary.
Learned counsel for the petitioner further submits that the Industrial Court committed a manifest error ignoring the fact that the appointment was made pursuant to a welfare scheme implemented by the Government through its instrumentality, i.e. petitioner-Corporation. Since the scheme was funded and floated by a central government agency, the failure to implead these agency essentially entails dismissal of the complaint. Further, the Industrial Court relied on mere extracts of meeting minutes rather than an actual executive decision. While the Tribunal answered the issue regarding the commission of unfair labour practices in the negative, it paradoxically directed the petitioner to cure the alleged practices. As such, the findings are perverse, unsustainable, and deserves to be quashed and set aside.
Per contra, the learned counsel for the respondent supported the order under challenge and submitted that the engagement of the respondent/complainant by the petitioner is evident from the record. The respondent is rendering continued services from the date of initial appointment from 01.02.1994. Although continuously rendered service for over 22–23 years, the petitioner-corporation exploited the complainant by issuing successive temporary orders on the consolidated salary and deliberately denied the regular pay scales mandated under the Government Resolution dated 23.12.1991. The Industrial Court, Jalgaon, rightly held that the petitioner guilty of Unfair Labour Practices and directed the grant of all monetary and consequential benefits from initial appointment date.
In support, the learned counsel for the respondent has relied on the following cases;
Maharashtra State Road Transport Corporation and another versus Casteribe Rajya Parivahan Karmchari Sanghtata, (2009) 8 SCC 556;
Dharam Singh and others versus State of U.P. and another, 2025 INSC 998;
Md. Abdul Kadir v. Director General of Police, (2009) 6 SCC 611.
Upon hearing both sides and perusing the material on record, it is undisputed that the respondent was appointed under a scheme implemented by the State authority and has continuously rendered the services for over two decades. When confronted with this fact, the learned counsel for the petitioner fairly conceded that the scheme remains in force and that the respondent continues to render services through periodical order of renewal by the petitioner Corporation.
The law is settled by the Hon'ble Supreme Court, in the case Maharashtra State Road Transport Corporation (supra) that the Umadevi judgment does not restrict the statutory powers of Industrial Courts to grant affirmative relief against established exploitation. The same is followed in Dharam Singh (supra) and it is observed that the judgment in the case of State of Karnataka versus Umadevi, (2006) 4 SCC 1, cannot shield State instrumentality from exploiting perennial workers, and that scheme-based appointments following a valid selection process must continue smoothly without the artificial annual breaks.
The Hon’ble Apex Court has deprecated the practice of giving artificial annual breaks in service for employees working under schemes. Where a scheme is extended from time to time, the employment of its personnel normally is co-terminus with the scheme, subject to satisfactory performance, discipline, and the age of retirement. However, such scheme-based employees cannot claim the benefits of regularization.
In view of the facts and since the issue is no more res integra in view of the law laid down by the Hon’ble Apex Court in the case of Md. Abdul Kadir (supra).
“This Court has always frowned upon artificial breaks in service. When the ad hoc appointment is under a scheme and is in accordance with the selection process prescribed by the scheme, there is no reason why those appointed under the scheme should not be continued as long as the scheme continues. Ad hoc appointments under schemes are normally coterminous with the scheme (subject of course to earlier termination either on medical or disciplinary grounds, or for unsatisfactory service or on attainment of normal age of retirement). Irrespective of the length of their ad hoc service or the scheme, they will not be entitled to regularization nor to the security of tenure and service benefits available to the regular employees. In this background, particularly in view of the continuing Scheme, the ex-serviceman employed after undergoing selection process, need not be subjected to the agony, anxiety, humiliation and vicissitudes of annual termination re engagement, merely because their appointment is termed as ad hoc appointments. We are therefore of the view that the learned Single Judge was justified in observing that the process of termination and reappointment every year should be avoided and the appellants should be continued as long as the Scheme continues, but purely on ad hoc and temporary basis, coterminous with the scheme. The circular dated 17.3.1995 directing artificial breaks by annual terminations followed by fresh appointment, being contrary to the PIF Additional Scheme and contrary to the principles of service jurisprudence, is liable to be quashed.”
Mr. Sangit, learned counsel for the petitioner, is justified in submitting that the Industrial Tribunal misread the meeting minutes as a Government Resolution. In any case, the Corporation is not justified in giving the respondent artificial breaks while the scheme remains in force, as the same contradicts the principle laid down in the Abdul Kadir (supra).
In view of the above, the writ petition is disposed of with a direction to the appropriate authority to ensure that the benefits available for continuous engagement are conferred upon the respondent, without disturbing the continuity of service, however, purely on adhoc and temporary basis, coterminous with the scheme, until expiration of the scheme or superannuation, whichever is earlier.
The writ petition is disposed of, accordingly.
Rule disposed of accordingly.
Pending civil application, if any, stands disposed of.