JUDGMENT - V.S. SIRPURKAR, J.:---Punjabrao Krishi Vidyapeeth ("University" for short) has challenged the order passed by the Industrial Court, Amravati, holding that the University has engaged in an unfair labour practice covered by Item 6 of Schedule IV of the Maharashtra Recognition of Trade Unions and Prevention of Unfair Labour Practices Act, 1971, and the consequential directions issued therein. In these directions, the learned Member of the Industrial Court has directed the respondent University to grant all the benefits and privileges admissible to the regular and permanent employees in so far as payment of wages, payment of dearness allowance and leave admissibility are concerned. The University is further directed to approach the Government with honest intention to persuade the Government to create permanent posts in which these employees can be absorbed. The learned Member has also further directed that they should be given the benefit of permanent employees from the date they complete five years of service and the standard date is settled from November 1990.

2. A complaint came to be made by the Union called Krishi Vidyapeeth Kamgar Union from its General Secretary representing the case of its members who were the workmen. In its complaint, the complainant claimed that the complainant was a registered union and had a right to represent its members. It further claimed that the said Punjabrao Krishi Vidyapeeth had under its control number of institutions including an Agricultural School at Nimba. The said school had about 175 acres of land and also owned cattle. It further claimed that in this school, there were more than 150 persons working as labourers and they were working since 1971. It is further contended that, in fact, the school had the work which could keep more than 150 labourers busy for the whole year. According to the complainant, the 18 members who were mentioned in the schedule to the complaint were in continuous service and were working in all the three seasons, i.e. summer, winter and rainy season and they used to do the work of looking after the cattle, watching the crops and also other agricultural operations. In para 6 it is claimed that whenever the said Union demanded that the workers should be made permanent, the University avoided the issue by answering that it was not within the power of the University and it was the sole discretion of the Government. It is then reiterated in para 7 that, in fact, the University was an independent institution and it could take the necessary decision. In para 8 it is contended that for years together, the labourers were continued as daily wages employees and in fact there was a need. In spite of the need, the workers were being deprived of the benefit of permanency and the principle of "equal work, equal pay" was being trampled by the Institution. In para 9(a), standard language is used and it is claimed that the applicants were deliberately deprived of the benefit of permanency and were made to work on meagre wages.

3. This application came to be opposed by the University. It denied the claim that the persons named in the schedule were regular workers and that they were busy throughout the year. It also denied the capacity of the school to keep 150 workers busy for the whole year. It claimed that the workers were engaged as and when they were required subject to their availability of work and they were getting the wages as per the wage prescribed by the Government under Minimum Wages Rules. It has been specifically replied by the University in para 6 that in fact, the factual position and the limitation of the management in bringing the workers on regular establishment has already been explained to the Union as well as the Labour Union before the Concilliation Officer several times and that Concilliation Officer has verified the position with reference to the records. It is further claimed that, in fact, there was neither a cause of action to the complaint nor

Click Here to Read the rest of this document