AI Structured Summary
Not yet generated for this judgment
Judgment
. Heard Mr. S. C. Joshi, learned AGP for the Petitioners, Mr. S. G. Jagtap, learned Counsel for the Respondent No.1 and Mr. P. R. Agrawal, learned Counsel for the Respondent No.2.
In the present Petition, challenge is to the Judgment and Order dated 22/4/2013 passed by the Industrial Court, Nagpur in Complaint ULP No. 308/2002, whereby the Industrial Court has directed to give the status privileges and benefits of permanent employee as a Watchman to the Respondent/Employee from the date of filing of the Complaint.
In the present matter, facts which are not disputed, is that the Respondent/Employee is working as a Watchman/Chowkidar in the Military Girls Hostel, Civil Lines, Nagpur since the year 1995. After completion of continuous service of almost six to seven years he was not continued on the post of Watchman, and therefore, he was constrained to file Complaint before the Industrial Court for regularization of service against the post of Watchman/Chowkidar with consequential benefits of service.
The said application filed by the Respondent/Employee was initially allowed by the Industrial Court vide order dated 23/8/2005. The said order of the Industrial Court was subject matter of challenge in Writ Petition Nos. 2520/2006 and 724/2006 filed by the Petitioners as well as Respondent/Employee. Both the Petitions were heard together and disposed of by this Court vide Judgment dated 24/9/2010. This Court, while deciding both the Petitions, has recorded that, “In order to grant the benefit of Clause 4(c) of the Model Standing Orders, the Industrial Court has to record the findings that the Model Standing Orders are applicable and that Complainant has completed 240 days of continuous service in establishment.” On these two grounds, the matter was remanded back to the Industrial Court to decide afresh. In the light of this direction issued by this Court, the learned Industrial Court has decided the Complaint filed by the Respondent/Employee vide impugned Judgment dated 22/4/2013.
It is seen from the record that after remanding the matter, both the parties have recorded their respective evidence. From the evidence, it is revealed that the Petitioners runs various activities for welfare of Ex-serviceman for resettlement and schemes of State Government. They spent 20% fund for running Hostel and 80% of fund spent for welfare scheme. As such, nature of work, which was carried out by the Petitioners for Lodging and Boarding. Activities run by them cannot be said as sovereign function. As such, the learned Industrial Court rightly held that the Petitioner is an Industry.
In respect of fact whether Respondent/Employee has rendered 240 days continuous service, it is seen from the record that since 1995, Respondent/Employee is in service. So also from the evidence of Petitioner’s witness it is established on record that Respondent/Employee used to work twelve months in a year. Therefore, it is established on record beyond doubt that the Respondent/Employee has worked continuously and rendered 240 days service with the Respondent/Employee.
Insofar as applicability of the Industrial Employment (Standing Orders) Act, 1946 is concerned, it would be relevant to note that Petitioner/Department run 49 Hostels throughout the State of Maharashtra and near about 272 Employees are working in all over Maharashtra. As per the provisions of law, if 50 or more Employees are employed by the establishment in the preceding twelve months, then Industrial Employment Standing Orders is applicable. In this regard learned Industrial Court elaborately discussed in paragraph No.15 of the Judgment. The said findings are not pointed out to be perverse or contrary to any provisions of law. Hence, considering the findings recorded by the learned Industrial Court, which are justified in the facts and circumstances of the case, I confirm the fact that the Industrial Employment (Standing Orders) Act, 1946 is applicable in the matter.
The Petitioners have raised one more ground before this Court that the learned Industrial Court has committed an error by holding that the Act of 1946 is applicable to the Petitioner/Establishment, particularly when the Petitioner/Establishment has produced on record the letter dated 8/11/2001 issued by the Director of Ex-serviceman Welfare Department, Maharashtra State, Pune, whereby it is stated that for the post of Non-Government Watchman ¼v’kkldh¸k pkSdhnkj½ should be appointed on contract basis for one year.
After going through the said letter which seems to be issued in reference to the communication of Department dated 23/10/2001. According to this letter, appointment of Watchman is required to be done through District Level Committee on contract basis. However, on perusal of the communication dated 8/11/2001, opening paragraph of this letter specifically states that this letter which was addressed to the District Ex-Serviceman Welfare Officer, states that the procedure for appointment stated therein would come into effect from 1/12/2001. The Petitioners are not in a position to point out that there were any other service Rules at the time of appointment of the Respondent/Employee in the year 1995. No documentary evidence is placed on record, under which authority or on what basis such communication was issued by the Director of Ex-serviceman Welfare Department. Hence, submission of the Petitioners is not acceptable in the matter.
The perusal of the Judgment of the Industrial Court shows that all aspects, as directed by this Court, in earlier round of litigation are properly considered and thereby it is held that the Act of 1946 is applicable in the matter. So also it is established on record that the Respondent/Employee has completed more than 240 days’ continuous service, and hence, he is entitled for permanency. The Petitioners failed to point out any illegality and perversity in the impugned Judgment. Accordingly, I do not find any error apparent on the face of record in the matter. Hence, the Petition stands dismissed. Rule is discharged. No order as to costs.
Since the Writ Petition is disposed of, pending Civil Application No. 1801/2026 does not survive. The same stands disposed of accordingly.