RANGNATH R KULKARNI Vs. BHIWANDI NIZAMPUR MUNICIPAL COUNCIL

JUDGEMENT

(1.) BOTH these writ petitions can be disposed of by a common judgment since the facts and the order impugned in both the writ petitions are same.

(2.) THE petitioners have impunged the common order of the Industrial Court dated 28th July, 1995 denying them permanency and the benefits attached to the same from the date of their appointments. Both the petitioners were employed as fireman with the first respondent Municipal Council. They were employed to fill in permanent vacancies. However, in order to avoid the effect of the Standing Orders and the labour laws applicable, the first respondent discontinued the petitioners from service on completion of three months. The petitioners continued in service, always with breaks, from 1976 onwards. They were also given wage rise every year while in service. However, the benefits of permanency were not given to the petitioners. They, therefore, filed individual complaints before the Industrial Court, Thane, for a declaration that the first respondent had committed unfair labour practices under Items 5, 6, and 9 of Schedule IV of the Maharashtra Recognition of Trade Unions and Prevention of Unfair Labour Practices Act, 1971 (hereinafter referred to as the said Act ) and that they should be declared as permanent firemen with effect from the date of their joining. These complaints were dismissed as not maintainable by the Industrial Court in 1987. On 16th December, 1994, the petitioners impugned the order of the Industrial Court by filing a writ petition in this Court which was allowed and the complaints were remanded to the Industrial Court. After remand, the Industrial Court by its common order dated 28th July, 1995 held that the first respondent had committed unfair labour practice under Items 5, 6, and 9 of Schedule IV of the said Act. The complaint in respect of Item 10 of Schedule IV of the said Act was dismissed. However, the Industrial Court directed the first respondent to make the petitioners permanent only with effect from 2nd March, 1981 and not from the dates of their joining. Being aggrieved by this order, the petitioners have approached this Court under Articles 226 and 227 of the Constitution of India by way of present writ petitions.

(3.) MR. Apte, learned Advocate for the petitioners, has submitted that the Industrial Court while deciding in favour of the petitioners and granting permanency to them with effect from 2nd March, 1981, has given no reasons as to why permanency was not given from their dates of joining. He submits that it is apparent that there were vacancies available to be filled in right from the year the petitioners joint their service as they were working continuously from 1976 when they joined service. In view of this, he submits that the petitioners are entitled to permanency from 1976 itself.