JUDGMENT - Smt. NISHITA MHATRE, J.:---Mr. R.G. Ketkar appears for the petitioners in

all the four writ petitions, while Mr. K.S. Bapat appears for the respondent in Writ Petition No. 3429 of 1995. None appears for the respondents in other three writ petitions, namely, Writ Petition No. 2247 of 1995, Writ Petition No. 3430 of 1995 and Writ Petition No. 3431 of 1995 though duly served. Since the question involved in these writ petitions is identical, these writ petitions can be disposed of by common judgment.

2. These four petitions impugn the common order passed by the Industrial Court in complaints filed by the employees of the petitioner corporation under Items 5, 6, 9 and 10 of the Maharashtra Recognition of Trade Union and Prevention of Unfair Labour Practices Act, 1971 (hereinafter referred to as the "MRTU PULP Act").

3. The respondent workmen in all the four petitions were employed in the Printing Press run by petitioner No. 1 Pune-Municipal Corporation, in various posts like Junior Binder, Baller, Pressman, Mono-caster Attendant, etc. They were employed on a temporary basis. It is the case of the respondent workmen that they have been continued as the temporary workmen for years together in order to deprive them of the permanent status and benefits available to permanent employees. Aggrieved by this, the respondent workmen filed individual complaints before the Industrial Court under Items 5, 6, 9 and 10 of the MRTU PULP Act. The main grievance of the workmen in the complaints was that despite having completed 240 days in service in their respective posts, they have not been made permanent. Common written statement was filed by the Corporation wherein it was pleaded that the Printing Press has a complement of less than 125 workmen; that appointments in Printing Press where the respondent workmen were employed were effected under the provisions of the Bombay Provincial Municipal Corporations Act, 1949 (hereinafter referred to as the "BPMC Act"); that employees working in the Printing Press were made permanent on completion of five years service in accordance with the Settlement signed with the Union in 1969. Although the muster rolls and payment registers of the respondent workmen were sought for by the respondent workmen, the petitioners failed to produce these documents before the Industrial Court. However, a copy of the settlement of September 1969 has been placed on record under which permanent was to be given to the employees only after completion of five years in service. The workmen submitted oral evidence through the workman in Writ Petition No. 3429 of 1995 who was examined on behalf of other workmen also. The Manager of the petitioner No. 1's Printing Press was examined on behalf of the petitioners. The Industrial Court by its common order dated 28th September, 1994 allowed the complaints and directed the petitioners to extend the benefits of permanency to the respondent workmen with effect from 28th September, 1987. The Industrial Court took the view that since the respondent workmen have completed 240 days in service, they were entitled to be made permanent immediately after completion of the same. The petitioners having failed to comply with this, had committed an unfair labour practice under Item 6 of Schedule IV of the MRTU PULP Act. The Industrial Court based its findings on the judgment of this Court in (Chief Officer, Sangli Municipal Council v. Shri Daramsing Hiralal Nagarkar)1, 1991(3) Bom.C.R. 114. The Industrial Court was of the view that the judgment cited on behalf of the petitioners in (Punjabrao Krishi Vidyapeeth, Akola v. General Secretary, Krishi Vidyapeeth Kamgar Union others)2, 1994(3) Bom.C.R. 13 has no relevance to the facts involved in the present case.

4. Mr. Ketkar, learned Advocate for the petitioners in all these petitions, submitted that the petitioners had given effect to the settlement with the union whereby the employees were to be made permanent only after completion of five

Click Here to Read the rest of this document