Case Note & Summary
The judgment arises from a batch of writ petitions filed by the Deputy Director, Social Forestry Division, Solapur, challenging an order of the Industrial Court, Solapur, dated 31 March 2001. The Industrial Court had partly allowed complaints filed by the respondents (daily wage workers) and directed the petitioners to consider their continuous service up to the date of amendment of complaints (21 July 1999) for grant of permanency, with continuity of service and consequential benefits but without backwages. The respondents were engaged as daily wage workers under the Social Forestry Scheme between 1985 and 1991. In 1992, they were transferred, leading them to file complaints of unfair labour practice. The Industrial Court granted an interim order of status quo on 17 February 1992, under which the respondents continued working. Subsequently, the respondents amended their complaints to seek permanency. The Industrial Court allowed the amendment and, after trial, granted the relief of permanency. The petitioners argued that the respondents were seasonal workers, not appointed against sanctioned posts, and that their services during the interim order should not count for continuity. The High Court dismissed the petitions, holding that the services rendered during the pendency of the complaint under the interim order are to be counted for continuous service. The court noted that the petitioners did not challenge the interim order and allowed the respondents to work for years. The court also held that the absence of sanctioned posts is not a bar to permanency if the work is perennial. The judgment emphasizes that the Industrial Court's order was just and proper, and no interference was warranted.
Headnote
A) Industrial Law - Unfair Labour Practice - Permanency - Daily Wage Workers - Social Forestry Scheme - The Industrial Court directed the petitioners to consider the length of continuous services of the respondents till the date of amendment of complaints for grant of permanency, with continuity of service and consequential benefits but without backwages. The High Court upheld the order, holding that the services rendered during the pendency of the complaint under an interim order cannot be ignored for computing continuous service. (Paras 1-5) B) Industrial Law - Continuous Service - Interim Order - Effect - The court held that the services rendered by the respondents during the pendency of the complaint, pursuant to an interim order of status quo, are to be counted for the purpose of determining continuous service. The petitioners cannot take advantage of their own failure to challenge the interim order or to terminate the services earlier. (Paras 6-10) C) Industrial Law - Permanency - Sanctioned Posts - Not Necessary - The court held that the absence of sanctioned posts is not a bar to grant permanency if the work is of a perennial nature and the workers have completed the requisite continuous service. The social forestry scheme, though initially temporary, had continued for many years, indicating the need for permanent workers. (Paras 11-15)
Issue of Consideration
Whether daily wage workers engaged under a temporary social forestry scheme are entitled to permanency based on continuous service, including the period during which they continued working under an interim order of the Industrial Court.
Final Decision
The High Court dismissed all writ petitions, upholding the Industrial Court's order dated 31 March 2001. The stay granted earlier was vacated.
Law Points
- Unfair labour practice
- permanency
- daily wage workers
- continuous service
- interim order
- social forestry scheme
- Industrial Disputes Act
- 1947
- Maharashtra Recognition of Trade Unions and Prevention of Unfair Labour Practices Act
- 1971
