JUDGMENT - H.L. GOKHALE, J.:---Heard Mr. Bhide, learned Counsel for the petitioners and Mr. Badar, learned Special Counsel for the respondents.

2. The petitioners herein are some twelve persons who were working as Watchmen under the first respondent for different periods as pointed out in Annexure-1 to the petition, two of them starting from 1984 from that matter. It is the case of the petitioners that they have been kept on temporary basis for a long time and are deprived of the benefit of regularization.

3. They have, in fact, for this purpose, filed two complaints under the Maharashtra Recognition of Trade Unions Prevention of Unfair Labour Practices Act, 1971 ("MRTU PULP Act", for short). The first one is Complaint (ULP) No. 461 of 1991 filed by a Trade Union, whereas the second one is Complaint (ULP) No. 755 of 1994 filed by the petitioner No. 10. That complaint invokes Item 6 of Schedule IV of the said Act, which declares the following practice as a General Unfair Labour Practice on the part of employer:---

"6. 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 privileges of permanent employees."

4. Apart from filing those complaints, they have filed the present petition. This is mainly because of the Government Resolution, dated 19th October, 1996, which made a beneficial provision for certain daily-rated labourers working under the first respondent. The Government Resolution stated that those daily-rated workmen, who had completed five years continuous service on 1st November, 1994 will be eligible to be regularized on some 1,164 supernumerary posts, which were created by the State. Clause (1) of the said Government Resolution stated that while calculating this period of five years, the period put in by the employees on Employment Guarantee Scheme or similar scheme guaranteeing employment will not be considered.

5. Prayers Clause (iii) of this petition seeks a declaration that the above referred condition No. (1) of this Government Resolution debarring (i.e., excluding) the services rendered in these other schemes is bad and the same be set aside. Prayer (i) is also to similar effect, viz., that the opening para of the Resolution restricting the benefit of permanency to the employees completing five-year continuous service prior to 1-11-1994 in the Social Forestry Department be set aside. The other two prayers seek permanency for petitioners on the basis of period of service put in under other schemes.

6. Mr. Bhide, learned Counsel for the petitioners, submits that the employees, who are daily-rated, whether working under the schemes of the first respondent or the Employment Guarantee Schemes, are the same persons and they are persons in difficulty and, therefore, no distinction should be made between the work put in by them under the two schemes. He submits that there is no rationable foundation in providing that only the period of work put under departmental schemes will be considered for regularization and not the period worked under other schemes.

7. As far as the respondent No. 1 is concerned, a return has been filed on their behalf and it has been specifically stated that muster rolls for "Jawahar Rozgar Yojana" and such other schemes etc., are different. The wages under the Employment Guarantee Scheme. Jawahar Rozgar Yojana etc., are paid from separate funds available for those schemes and these schemes are temporary. As against that, the schemes of the department are continuous schemes, whereunder forestation in Municipal areas etc., is taken by the first respondent. Mr. Badar, learned Counsel for respondent No. 1, therefore, submits that the object of employing people under the Employment Guarantee Scheme is to provide employment, whereas the objects of projects under the schemes of the respondent No. 1 are different. The idea of completing 240 days and, therefore, getting certain rights based thereon cannot b

Click Here to Read the rest of this document