Case Note & Summary
The petitioner, Navnath Maruti Chavan, was employed as a forest worker in the Forest Department of Maharashtra from 13th July 1995. He alleged that despite completing 240 days of service, he was not made permanent and was paid wages lower than those of permanent employees. He filed a complaint 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 before the Industrial Court, Pune, seeking permanency and equal wages. The respondents, the Conservator of Forest and Deputy Conservator of Forest, contended that the petitioner was employed under a government scheme, that minimum wages were paid, and that there were no vacant sanctioned posts to absorb him permanently. The Industrial Court dismissed the complaint on 13th September 2001. The petitioner challenged this dismissal by way of a writ petition before the Bombay High Court. The High Court examined the evidence, including the petitioner's own testimony that he had completed 240 days, but noted that the petitioner was employed under a scheme and that the respondents had no sanctioned posts. The court held that the mere completion of 240 days does not create a right to permanency, especially when employment is under a scheme and there are no vacant posts. The court also found that the petitioner was paid minimum wages and that the respondents' actions did not amount to any unfair labour practice under the Act. Consequently, the High Court dismissed the writ petition, upholding the Industrial Court's order.
Headnote
A) Industrial Law - Unfair Labour Practice - Permanent Employment - Items 5, 6, 9, 10 of Schedule IV of Maharashtra Recognition of Trade Unions and Prevention of Unfair Labour Practices Act, 1971 - The petitioner, a forest worker, claimed permanency after completing 240 days but was employed under a government scheme without sanctioned posts - The Industrial Court dismissed the complaint, and the High Court upheld the dismissal, holding that completion of 240 days does not automatically confer permanency, especially when employment is under a scheme and no sanctioned posts exist - Held that the employer's action did not constitute an unfair labour practice (Paras 1-6).
Issue of Consideration
Whether the failure to make a workman permanent after completion of 240 days constitutes an unfair labour practice 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, when the workman is employed under a government scheme and there are no vacant sanctioned posts.
Final Decision
The High Court dismissed the writ petition, upholding the Industrial Court's order dismissing the complaint.
Law Points
- Unfair labour practice
- permanent employment
- completion of 240 days
- scheme employment
- sanctioned posts
- government resolution
