N.J.JAMADAR, J. - (1.)Rule. Rule made returnable forthwith and, with the consent of the counsels for the parties, heard finally.
(2.)This petition under Article 227 of the Constitution of India assails the legality, propriety and correctness of the judgment and order dated 2nd July, 2018 passed by the learned Member, Industrial Court, Kolhapur in Complaint (ULP) No.135 of 2014 whereby the appellant was directed to cease and desist from engaging in unfair labour practice and to grant status and privileges of permanent employee to the respondent-complainant in class IV post with all consequential benefts, with effect from 8th October, 2014 within a period of two months thereof.
(3.)Shorn of superfuities, the background facts leading to this petition can be stated as under:
"a] The respondent/complainant approached the learned Member, Industrial Court, with a complaint, under section 28 (1) read with Items Nos. 5, 6, 9 and 10 of Sch-IV of Maharashtra Recognition of Trade Unions and Prevention of Unfair Labour Practices Act, 1971 (the Act,1971), contending, inter alia that the complainant has been working with the respondent/employer since 5th July, 1997 as a 'Sweeper '. While making initial appointment, the name of the complainant was called from the offce of Employment Exchange and, post interview, the complainant was appointed initially for a period of 29 days. Subsequently, the services of the complainant were continued by issuing orders from time to time on varying posts of sweeper, peon, word boy. Complainant has been working on a clear vacant post. The work performed by the complainant was of perennial nature. In fact, the complainant has worked for more than 240 days, in each of the calendar years, with artifcial breaks, which were given with a view to deprive the complainant form the status and privileges of permanent employee.

b] The employer resisted the claim of the complainant. Thrust of the resistance was that the services of the complainant were availed for specifc period during leave vacancy of regular employees, temporarily, and subject to conditions stipulated in the appointment orders. Those appointments were, thus, purely temporary and contractual. It was denied that the complainant had rendered 240 days of uninterrupted service in each of the calendar years, since the date of initial appointment. The complainant is thus not entitled to the beneft of permanency.

c] The learned Member, Industrial Court, Kolhapur after evaluating the material on record, especially the evidence of employer 's witnesses, was persuaded to hold that the complainant was initially appointed on a class IV post in the year 1997 in accordance with the then prevailing rules. The employers ' witness admitted, during the course of cross examination, that since the year 1997, the complainant has been in employment on a clear vacant post and the complainant had completed 240 days of service in each calendar year. Thus, the continuation of the complainant as a temporary employee for years together, despite availability of the post and work, was held to be an unfair labour practice under item 6 of the schedule IV of the Act,1971.

d] Holding thus, the complaint came to be partly allowed with direction to the respondent to grant status and privileges of a permanent employee to the complainant in class IV post with effect from 8th October, 2014 with all consequential benefits.

e] Being aggrieved, the employer/State has invoked the writ jurisdiction of this Court."