IMPORTANT POINT
Such power was not to be affected by
Umadevi’s case (supra) was limited to the scope of powers being exercised under Articles 32 and 226 of the Constitution of India for regularization and matter of public importance. It does not affect the power to take affirmative action by Labour court under Section 30 (1) (b) of Maharashtra Recognition of Trade Unions & Prevention of Unfair Labour Practices Act, 1971 remained intact.

JUDGMENT :

SANJAY KISHAN KAUL, J.

1. We are faced with eleven appeals filed by eleven daily wage workers of the Regional Dairy at Konkan, Maharashtra who claim permanency of their status.

2. The appellants filed complaints before the Industrial Court, Maharashtra at Kolhapur under Section 28 read with Items 5, 6 and 9 of Schedule IV of the Maharashtra Recognition of Trade Unions & Prevention of Unfair Labour Practices Act, 1971 (hereinafter referred to as ‘the said Act’) claiming that they had been working with the respondent for periods more than 240 days continuously over a long period of time and have not been given regular status. The status of these complainants is set out in the judgment of the Tribunal itself and would show the position qua these appellants:

3. The complaints in the case were filed as noticed above, in the year 2001 though these complainants had been working from the year 1983 onwards and last of such person had started working in the year 1987. In terms of the order of the Tribunal dated 28.4.2004 these complaints were allowed. It was noticed that the appellants were being denied the benefits of permanency including yearly increments, bonus, provident fund, retirement benefits etc. as were admissible to the regular employees. The plea of the respondent/State of the absence of any sanctioned posts was noticed as also the ban on recruitment by the State Government. But the permanency was granted considering that the appellants were not new appointees and had been working even as on that date for the last 12 to 20 years. It was thus, felt that the responsibility lay on the respondent to send proposal to the Government for sanction of the posts. The fact that these persons had continued as daily rated employees for years together itself showed, it was held, that there was requirement of permanent posts and this methodology could not be utilized to deprive the appellants of the benefits of permanency.

4. The respondent No.2 before us, the Regional Dairy Development Officer, filed Writ Petition Nos.4141-4152/2006 assailing the said order and those Writ Petitions were dismissed by the learned Single Judge vide order dated 10.7.2007. The respondents, however, succeeded in the further appeal through Letters Patent Appeal NO.14-25/2008 which were allowed by the Division Bench of the Bombay High Court in terms of the impugned order dated 31.7.2008.

5. A perusal of the aforesaid order shows that what has weighed with the Division Bench is there being no stated regular process for making the appointment and the absence of sanctioned posts. In view thereof, various standing orders issued under the Industrial Employment (Standing Orders) Act, 1946 would not come to the aid of the appellants. We may also note that this is from the context of the State of Maharashtra in exercise of powers under Section 15 of that Act having framed the Bombay Industrial Employment (Standing Orders) Rules, 1959 and the Rules prescribing model standing orders in Schedule I thereto.

6. We have heard learned counsel for the parties.

7. The factual matrix shows that for decades together these appellants have been performing the job of the regular employees and this is not a seasonal requirement or a temporary requirement. No doubt there was no regular process by which these app