The Government of Maharashtra and Others vs Maroti Ramdasji Wasnik

R.K. Deshpande, J.—The Industrial Court has by its common judgment and order dated 07.11.2006 allowed Complaint ULP Nos. 31,306 and 657 of 2000 filed by the complainant/respondent in all these petitions. The complainants are granted regularization in service on the basis of Item 6 of Schedule IV of the Maharashtra Recognition of Trade Unions and Prevention of Unfair Labour Practices Act (in short MRTU and PULP Act) after recording the finding that the complainants were continued as dailywagers for years together. The Industrial Court has directed to give status and privileges of permanent employee in Class IV cadre to the complainants from the date of judgment. The employment in Class IV post in the Polytechnic institutes run by the State Government is governed by the Recruitment Rules. The posts are required to be sanctioned and thereafter those are required to be filled in by following the procedure for recruitment. It is not in dispute in the present case that the complainants were working as daily-wagers and are continued in service for years together. However, that by itself is not enough to grant regularization in service under Item 6 of Schedule IV of MRTU and PULP Act or under Clause 4C of the Model Standing Orders.

The finding of the Industrial Court is that though 468 posts were created in various Polytechnic Colleges run by the State Government, the posts have lapsed and only 4 sanctioned posts existed in the Petitioner No. 2 Institute. The posts are required to be filled in by following the Rules of Recruitment. The Industrial Court has relied upon the decision of the learned Single Judge of this Court in The Divisional Manager, Division Wanprakalpa Office (West), Forest Development Corporation of Maharashtra Ltd. Vs. Chimna Arjun Jadhav, .

I have considered this judgment in the case of Chief Conservator of Forests (Territorial), Nagpur, Deputy Conservator of Forests, Divisional Forest office, Bhandara Division, Bhandara and Range Forest officer, Tiroda, Tah. Tiroda Dn., Gondia Vs. Ashikque and Others, , and it has been held that regularization under Item 6 of Schedule IV of MRTU and PULP Act or grant of permanency under Clause 4C of the Model Standing Orders merely because of completion of continuous service of 240 days is not enough. The dailywagers do not hold any post. The decision of the Division Bench of this Court in State of Maharashtra and Another Vs. Pandurang Sitaram Jadhav, will have to be preferred over a decision of the learned Single Judge of this Court in Chimna Arjun Jadhav''s case. The Industrial Court has, therefore, committed an error in holding that Item 6 of Schedule IV of MRTU and PULP Act was attracted and thereby to grant status and privileges of permanent employee to the complainants. In the result, the writ petitions are allowed. The common judgment and order dated 07.11.2006 passed by the Industrial Court in Complaint ULP Nos. 31,306 and 657 of 2000 is hereby quashed and set aside. Complaint ULP Nos. 31, 306 and 657 of 2000 are dismissed.

Rule is made absolute in these terms. No order as to cost.

Needless to say that the complainants are at liberty to file separate complaints for seeking regularization on the basis of any Government Resolution by invoking Item 5 of Schedule IV of MRTU and PULP Act, if it is permissible in law.