Case Note & Summary
The judgment involves two writ petitions arising from the same Industrial Court order dated 20/03/1997. The first petition was filed by the workman, Ashok Pandurang Phalake, challenging the denial of back wages from 27/04/1992 despite being granted permanency from 01/01/1990. The second petition was filed by the State of Maharashtra and other forestry officers challenging the grant of permanency itself. The workman alleged he had been working since 1985 and filed Complaint (ULP) No.89/1988 seeking regularization and consequential benefits. The Industrial Court granted permanency from 01/01/1990 but did not award back wages from 27/04/1992, leading to cross-challenges. The High Court considered submissions from both sides. The court noted that the workman had not raised the issue of applicability of the Kalelkar Settlement before the Industrial Court. The court held that permanency could be granted based on continuous service of 240 days in a calendar year, but back wages are not automatic; the workman must prove he was willing to work. Since the workman failed to establish his willingness to work after 27/04/1992, the denial of back wages was justified. Consequently, the High Court dismissed the establishment's petition challenging permanency and partly allowed the workman's petition only to the extent of confirming permanency, but denied back wages.
Headnote
A) Service Law - Regularization - Permanency - Industrial Court granted permanency to workman from 01/01/1990 based on continuous service of 5 years - Held that permanency can be granted if workman has completed 240 days in a calendar year (Paras 1-4). B) Service Law - Back Wages - Denial of Back Wages - Workman claimed back wages from 27/04/1992 but failed to prove he was willing to work - Held that back wages are not automatic and workman must establish that he was available for work (Paras 1-4).
Issue of Consideration
Whether the workman is entitled to back wages from 27/04/1992 after being granted permanency from 01/01/1990, and whether the Industrial Court erred in granting permanency to the workman.
Final Decision
The High Court dismissed the establishment's petition (WP 3652/1997) challenging permanency and partly allowed the workman's petition (WP 3414/1997) only to the extent of confirming permanency, but denied back wages from 27/04/1992.
Law Points
- Permanency can be granted based on continuous service of 240 days in a calendar year
- Back wages are not automatic upon grant of permanency
- Burden of proof on workman to show willingness to work for claiming back wages
