Case Note & Summary
The Bombay High Court at Aurangabad disposed of a group of writ petitions filed by daily wage workers of the Forest Department, challenging the adverse proposal submitted by the Deputy Conservator of Forest (DCF) that sought to deny them regularization despite concurrent findings in their favor. The petitioners had originally filed complaints under the Maharashtra Recognition of Trade Unions and Prevention of Unfair Labour Practices Act, 1971 (MRTU & PULP Act) before the Industrial Court, which declared that the Forest Department had engaged in unfair labour practices and directed payment of equal wages. The Forest Department challenged these orders before a Single Judge of the High Court, who dismissed the petitions and directed the DCF to forward proposals for regularization with deemed dates and monetary benefits. Instead of complying, the DCF submitted a proposal stating that 15 out of 16 workers did not deserve consideration as they had not worked 240 days per year and were employed under the Employment Guarantee Scheme (EGS). The High Court found this proposal to be an act of overreach and willful disobedience, as the Single Judge had already rejected the EGS defense due to lack of evidence. The court noted that the workers had served for over three decades and many had superannuated. The High Court quashed the DCF's proposal and directed the Conservator of Forest to reconsider the proposals in light of the Single Judge's judgment, ensuring that the workers receive regularization, deemed dates, and all consequential benefits. The court also warned that any further disobedience would invite contempt proceedings.
Headnote
A) Industrial Law - Unfair Labour Practice - Regularization of Daily Wage Workers - Sections 28(1), Items 6, 9, 10 of Schedule IV, MRTU & PULP Act, 1971 - The Industrial Court declared that the Forest Department indulged in unfair labour practices and directed payment of equal wages. The Single Judge upheld these findings and directed regularization. The Deputy Conservator of Forest's subsequent proposal contradicting these findings was held to be an act of overreach and willful disobedience. (Paras 5-11) B) Evidence - Burden of Proof - Employment Guarantee Scheme - The Forest Department failed to produce any documentary evidence to prove that the workers were employed under EGS, despite having the burden. The mere statement in the written statement was insufficient. (Paras 7-8) C) Service Law - Regularization - Deemed Date - Chief Conservator of Forest v. Jagannath Maruti Kondhare, (1996) 2 SCC 293 - Workers who served for over three decades are entitled to regularization with deemed dates and all consequential monetary benefits. (Paras 8-9) D) Contempt of Court - Willful Disobedience - The Deputy Conservator of Forest's proposal that contradicted the court's directions was an attempt to overbear the judicial findings and amounted to willful disobedience. (Paras 10-11)
Issue of Consideration
Whether the Deputy Conservator of Forest could disregard the concurrent findings of the Industrial Court and the Single Judge Bench regarding the petitioners' long service and entitlement to regularization, and whether the proposal submitted by the DCF amounted to willful disobedience of court orders.
Final Decision
The High Court quashed the proposal dated 25.06.2022 submitted by the Deputy Conservator of Forest and directed the Conservator of Forest (Territorial), Dhule, to reconsider the proposals in light of the Single Judge's judgment dated 14.03.2022, ensuring that the petitioners receive regularization, deemed dates, and all consequential monetary benefits. The court warned that any further disobedience would invite contempt proceedings.
Law Points
- Unfair labour practice
- Equal pay for equal work
- Regularization of daily wage workers
- MRTU and PULP Act
- Industrial Court jurisdiction
- Forest Department as industry
- Employment Guarantee Scheme burden of proof
- Disobedience of court orders
