Case Note & Summary
The petitioners, eight dailywager women employed in the Taluka Fruits Nursery Plants run by the Horticulture Department, Amravati, filed Complaint (ULP) No. 369 of 1991 before the Industrial Court claiming permanency in service. The Industrial Court dismissed the complaint on 26.11.2008, holding that the complainants failed to establish that they had continuously worked for 240 days during the period 1985 to 1992. The Court further held that even if 240 days continuous service was assumed, permanency could not be granted in the absence of sanctioned posts. The complainants challenged this order by way of Writ Petition No. 2027 of 2009 before the Bombay High Court, Nagpur Bench. The High Court noted that there was no challenge to the finding regarding the absence of sanctioned posts. The petitioners' counsel argued that under a subsequent Government Resolution dated 31.01.1996, persons who completed 5 years continuous service were entitled to permanency. However, the High Court observed that the complaint was filed on 21.07.1991, before the resolution came into existence. The Court held that the Industrial Court's order was correct and dismissed the writ petition. It further clarified that if the complainants are entitled to regularization under the Government Resolution, they may agitate that grievance in appropriate proceedings, and the impugned order would not come in their way.
Headnote
A) Service Law - Permanency - Dailywagers - Requirement of 240 days continuous service and sanctioned posts - Industrial Court dismissed complaint for permanency holding that complainants failed to establish 240 days continuous service and that even if assumed, permanency cannot be granted without sanctioned posts - High Court upheld the decision as no challenge to finding regarding absence of sanctioned posts (Paras 1-2).
B) Service Law - Government Resolution - Applicability - Government Resolution dated 31.01.1996 providing permanency after 5 years continuous service - Complaint filed on 21.07.1991 before the resolution - Held that complainants may agitate their rights under the resolution in separate proceedings and the impugned order will not come in their way (Para 2).
Issue of Consideration
Whether dailywagers are entitled to permanency in service in the absence of sanctioned posts and without establishing 240 days continuous service.
Final Decision
Writ petition dismissed. Industrial Court order upheld. However, liberty granted to complainants to agitate their rights under Government Resolution dated 31.01.1996 in appropriate proceedings.
Law Points
- Permanency in service requires both 240 days continuous service and existence of sanctioned posts
- Government Resolution dated 31.01.1996 not applicable to complaint filed before its issuance
Case Details
2015 LawText (BOM) (10) 143
WRIT PETITION NO. 2027 OF 2009
Shri N.R.Saboo for Petitioners, Shri K.L.Dharmadhikari, AGP for Respondents
Sou. Sumanbai Shinde and others
Secretary, Agriculture and Horticulture Deptt., Maharashtra State and others
Subscribe to unlock Case Details (Citation, Judge, Date & more)
Subscribe Now
Nature of Litigation
Writ petition challenging Industrial Court order dismissing complaint for permanency in service.
Remedy Sought
Petitioners sought quashing of Industrial Court order and direction for permanency in employment.
Filing Reason
Industrial Court dismissed complaint (ULP) No. 369 of 1991 on 26.11.2008, holding that complainants failed to establish 240 days continuous service and that permanency cannot be granted without sanctioned posts.
Previous Decisions
Industrial Court dismissed Complaint (ULP) No. 369 of 1991 on 26.11.2008.
Issues
Whether the Industrial Court erred in dismissing the complaint for permanency on the ground that complainants failed to establish 240 days continuous service.
Whether permanency can be granted in the absence of sanctioned posts.
Whether the Government Resolution dated 31.01.1996 entitling persons with 5 years continuous service to permanency applies to the present case.
Submissions/Arguments
Petitioners' counsel submitted that under Government Resolution dated 31.01.1996, persons who completed 5 years continuous service were entitled to permanency.
Respondents argued that the complaint was filed before the resolution and that there were no sanctioned posts.
Ratio Decidendi
Permanency in service cannot be granted in the absence of sanctioned posts, even if 240 days continuous service is established. A subsequent Government Resolution cannot be applied to a complaint filed before its issuance, but employees may seek relief under it separately.
Judgment Excerpts
The Industrial Court has held that the complainants have failed to establish that they have continuously worked for 240 days during the period 1985 to 1992.
The Court further proceeded to hold that even if it is assumed that the complainants have established 240 days continuous service in each preceding year, that by itself is not enough to grant the complainants permanency in service in the absence of sanctioned posts.
If the complainants are entitled to regularization on the basis of such Government Resolution, it will be open for the complainants to agitate such grievance in appropriate proceedings and the judgment and order impugned shall not come in the way of the employees.
Procedural History
Complaint (ULP) No. 369 of 1991 filed on 21.07.1991 before Industrial Court seeking permanency. Industrial Court dismissed complaint on 26.11.2008. Petitioners filed Writ Petition No. 2027 of 2009 before Bombay High Court, Nagpur Bench, which was dismissed on 05.10.2015.
Acts & Sections
- Maharashtra Recognition of Trade Unions and Prevention of Unfair Labour Practices Act, 1971:
