JUDGMENT - H.H. KANTHARIA, J.:---The respondent-workman was appointed as a Bill Clerk in the Public Works Department of the Sangli Municipal Council in vacant post with effect from June 1, 1979. He was given appointment orders every month and thus continued in the employment till August 1, 1980. Thereafter, he was again appointed for one month upto August 31, 1980 and then no orders of appointment were issued in his favour. Instead an order appointing one K.G. Londhe with effect from September 1, 1980 was passed. According to the respondent-workman, since he had continuously worked for a period of fifteen months in the Public Works Department of the Sangli Municipal Council he was entitled to be made permanent as a Bill Clerk and was further entitled to be continued in the services even after August 31, 1980 by virtue of the provisions of the Award made in Reference (IT) No. 102 of 1955. His grievance was that by failing to implement the provisions of the said Award and not making him permanent the petitioner committed unfair labour practice covered by Item 9 of Schedule IV of the MRTU PULP Act, 1971. It is also his contention that although he had continuously worked for fifteen months and was still not made permanent thereby the petitioner committing an unfair labour practice covered by Item 6 of Schedule IV of the MRTU PULP Act. He accordingly filed complaint (U.L.P.) No. 449 of 1980 in the Industrial Court at Pune.

2. The said complainant was resisted by the Chief Officer of Sangli Municipal Council and one of the contentions raised in the written statement was that the complaint was barred by law of limitation and that the respondent-workman could not have been made permanent by the petitioner because they were to appoint persons recommended by the State Selection Board and thus committed no unfair labour practice covered by Item 6 of Schedule IV of the MRTU PULP Act. It was also the contention of the petitioner-Council that the provisions of the Award made in Reference (IT) No. 102 of 1955 were not applicable to the facts of the respondent-workman's case and, therefore, they also did not commit an act of unfair labour practice covered by Item 9 of Schedule IV of the MRTU PULP Act.

3. The learned Member of the Industrial Court, Pune who heard the unfair labour practice complaint came to the conclusion that the petitioner-Council was guilty of unfair labour practice covered by Items 6 and 9 of Schedule IV of the MRTU PULP Act and he accordingly by his judgment and order dated April 5, 1982 so declared and directed the petitioner-Council to take the first respondent-workman in the permanent employment of the Council as a Bill-Clerk, in the Public Works Department, and treat him permanent employee with effect from September 1, 1980 and also pay to him one third of the back wages for the enforced period of unemployment. The Council was also ordered to pay cost of Rs. 25/- to the respondent-workman.

4. Being aggrieved, the Chief Officer of the Sangli Municipal Council filed the present writ petition invoking the supervisory writ jurisdiction of this Court under Article 227 of the Constitution.

5. At the hearing, Mr. Jamdar, learned Advocate appearing on behalf of the petitioner-Council, first of all urged that in the facts and circumstances of this case it cannot be said that the petitioner-Council committed an unfair labour practice covered by Item 6 of Schedule IV of the MRTU PULP Act inasmuch as the respondent-workman was not continued as a temporary workman for years but only for a period of fifteen months. Item 6 of Schedule IV of the MRTU PULP Act provides that it would be general unfair labour practice on the part of an employer to employ employees as badlis, casuals or temporaries and to continue them as such for years with the object of depriving them of the status and privilege of permanent employees. Mr. Jamdar found force for his argument in the words 'for years' and submitted that the period of fifteen

Click Here to Read the rest of this document