- (1.)RULE with the consent of the parties made returnable forthwith and heard.
(2.)THE above Writ Petitions take exception to the judgments and orders passed by the Industrial Court, Bhandara, by which the complaints filed by the respondent in each of the above petitions came to be allowed and the declaration came to be issued that the petitioners herein have engaged in unfair labour practice covered under Items 5, 6 and 9 of Schedule IV of the Maharashtra Recognition of Trade Unions and Prevention of Unfair Labour Practices Act, 1971 (M.R.T.U. & P.U.L.P. Act, 1979). THE Industrial Court has issued a direction to regularize the services of the complainants by forwarding a proposal to that effect as per Government Resolution dated 30/01/1996. A further direction was issued to extend the benefit of permanency to the complainants.
Shorn of unnecessary details, the factual matrix of the case can be stated thus. The respondent in each of the above petitions claimed to be working with the Forest Department i.e. the petitioner above named from the year 1990 on daily wage basis. It appears that the State Government to ameliorate the conditions of the persons, who were working on daily wages took a policy decision to regularize their services. Pursuant to which the State Government issued a Government Resolution Dated 30/01/1996 inter alia governing the regularization of services of such daily wagers. In terms of the said resolution, the cut off date fixed was 1 st November, 1994 and the daily wagers, who had worked for a period of 240 days in the minimum every year in the preceding five years, were to be given the benefit of regularization. The respondent in the above petitions filed Complaint ULP 75/2007 (subject matter of Writ Petition No.781/2011) invoking Items 5, 6 and 9 of Schedule IV of the M.R.T.U. & P.U.L.P. Act, 1971. The substantive relief sought in the said Complaint was that the respondent was seeking regularization of his services and to grant him benefit of permanency with the back wages and continuity of service in terms of the said Government Resolution dated 30/01/1996. Similar complaints were filed by the respondents in the other petitions.

The parties went to trial. During the course of the trial, since the issue was as regards whether the respondentworkman had completed 240 days of service in each of the preceding five years, the respondent was directed to take inspection of the muster rolls and prepare a chart in respect of the number of days that he had worked in the preceding five years. Accordingly, inspection was afforded to the respondent on the basis which a Chart was prepared in respect of each of the respondents in the above writ petitions, which was proved in evidence and came to be marked as Exhibit32.

(3.)THE said chart was signed on behalf of the petitioners herein by one Ashwinikumar Thakkar, who was then working as Range Forest Officer. In so far as the petitioners are concerned, they also sought to produce muster rolls in respect of each of the respondentcomplainant in support of their case that each of the respondentcomplainant had not worked for a period of 240 days in each of the preceding five years prior to the cut off date. However, since the said muster rolls were not proved by the petitioners in accordance with the provisions of the Evidence Act, the same was not accepted.
The Industrial Court relying upon Exhibit32 filed on behalf of the respondent recorded a finding that each of the respondents in the above petitions had worked for a period of 240 days in each of the preceding five years prior to the cut off date. In so far as the muster rolls produced by the petitioners are concerned, the Industrial Court did not deem it fit to take it into consideration on the ground that they did not cover the entire period. The said finding of the Industrial Court finds place in paragraph No.11 of the impugned judgment and order.