The case involves multiple writ petitions filed by the Deputy Director, Social Forestry Division, challenging the Industrial Court's 2001 decision that directed the grant of permanency to several daily wage workers employed under the Social Forestry Scheme. The High Court reviewed the Industrial Court's decision, which considered the workers' continuous service from the date of engagement until the amendment of their complaints in 1999, for granting them permanent status. The petitioners contended that the workers were not eligible for permanency since their employment was not against sanctioned posts and was seasonal in nature.

1. Background of the Case:

• The Social Forestry Scheme involved afforestation on barren lands, utilizing daily wage laborers for activities like plantation and maintenance of forests. Workers were engaged on a need basis, and many worked for extended periods between 1985 and 1991.
• The workers challenged their transfers and sought relief on grounds of unfair labor practices.

2. Industrial Court’s Decision:

• The Industrial Court ruled in favor of the workers, directing the Social Forestry Division to consider the length of continuous service and issue orders for permanency, excluding back wages.

3. Petitioners' Arguments:

• The petitioners argued that workers were seasonal, not employed against sanctioned posts, and their employment did not meet the criteria for permanent status. They also contended that the workers' continuance was due to interim orders by the Industrial Court.

4. Respondents' Arguments:

• The workers argued that they had served for over five years continuously and were entitled to permanency under the Kalelkar Award. They also denied that their continuation was solely due to the Court’s interim order.

5. Kalelkar Award and Legal Provisions:

• The Industrial Court referred to the Kalelkar Award, which grants permanency to daily wage workers after five years of continuous service. However, the judgment did not fully clarify the reasoning behind computing five years before the complaint amendment.

6. High Court Analysis:

• The Court emphasized the legal position established by Umadevi, where regularization based on long service alone does not confer a right to permanency. The Court also referred to earlier judgments, such as MSRTC vs. Casteribe, to affirm that permanency could be granted in cases involving unfair labor practices.

Ratio Decidendi:

The High Court upheld the Industrial Court’s decision, recognizing that the workers were victims of unfair labor practices, and the grant of permanency was justified. Despite the absence of sanctioned posts, the prolonged employment and the government’s absorption schemes, including those post-1995, provided a framework for granting the workers permanent status.

Acts and Sections Discussed:

• Kalelkar Award: Provision for permanency after five years of continuous service.
• Industrial Disputes Act, 1947: Used for arguments related to unfair labor practices.
• Umadevi Judgment (2006): Establishes that long-term casual employment does not automatically lead to regularization unless specific conditions are met.

Subjects:

• Daily Wage Workers, Social Forestry Scheme, Permanency, Unfair Labor Practice, Industrial Court, Employment Regularization, Kalelkar Award, Umadevi Judgment.