MHATRE NISHITA (Smt ), J. - (1.)The judgment challenged in this petition had been delivered by the Member, Industrial Court, Pune on 31.3.1997 in Complaint (U.L.P.) No. 579 of 1993. By this judgment, the Industrial Court has allowed the complaint filed by the workman and has held that the petitioners have committed an unfair labour practices under Items 6 and 9 of Schedule IV of the M.R.T.U. & P.U.L.P. Act. The petitioners have been directed to regularise the workman by making her permanent from 15.12.1993 i.e. the date of filing of the complaint and to pay her the difference in wages from that date.
(2.)The undisputed facts in the present case are as follows:
The petitioner recruited the workman in 1981. A common seniority list was released on 19.1.1983. The workman was at serial No. 221 in this list. In 1987, 31 employees were regularised in service. During the period between 3.9.1990 and 3.4.1993, several other daily rated workmen were regularised. According to the petitioner, these regularisations were effected in accordance with the group-wise seniority list maintained by the petitioners after discussions with the Labour Welfare Committee. The common seniority list of 1986 was rearranged into group-wise seniority lists and regularisation and permanency was granted to the workmen on those lists in accordance with their seniority.

(3.)Aggrieved by the decision of the petitioners in promoting her juniors, the workman filed Complaint (U.L.P.) No. 579 of 1993 alleging unfair labour practices under Items 5, 6, 9 and 10 of Schedule IV of the M.R.T.U. & P.U.L.P. Act. The contention raised by the workman in her complaint was that she had completed 240 days in service since her appointment in 1981 but had been continued as a temporary daily rated employee. She further contended that by continuing her on a temporary basis for years together, the petitioners had deprived her of the benefits granted to permanent employees such as the time-scale, paid holidays, uniforms, leave, bonus, etc. She further contended that the petitioners continued her as a temporary workman with the object of depriving her of the status and privileges of permanent employees. She therefore sought directions from the Court for regularising her on the establishment from 1981. She further sought the difference in wages payable to her on account of her regularisation in service.