The court emphasized that strict rules of pleading do not apply to disputes before the Industrial Court and that there need not be any evidence to prove the facts before the Industrial Tribunal, only material on record.

JUDGMENT - DHARMADHIKARI B.P., J.: - By this petition under Articles 226 and 227 of Constitution of India the petitioners, all officers of State Government of Maharashtra challenger the order dated Fifth of February, 1999 delivered by member Industrial Court Nagpur in U.L.P. Complaint Number 9 of 1993. This Court has notice before admission on 29-11-1999 and since then the matter is pending for admission. On 26 November, 2001 this Court fixed the matter on 22 December, 2001 for final hearing at admission stage itself. Accordingly, matter is taken for final hearing and the request of both the parties. Rule returnable forthwith. Heard finally. Advocate Gilda argued the matter on behalf of petitioners while Advocate Mohokar argued the matter on behalf of both the respondent No. 1. Nobody appears for respondent No. 2 though served.

2. The facts giving rise to the present petition can be briefly stated as under:-

Present respondent No. 1 Waman filed a complaint under section 28 of Maharashtra Recognition of Trade Unions and Prevention of Unfair Labour Act, 1971 (hereinafter referred to as "the Act") on 15th October, 1992 before Industrial Court at Nagpur. He contended that he is working as labour in colony and Stores of Sub-Division No. 4 Pench Hydro Electric Circle of Irrigation Department at Totaladoh Circle, Tahasil Ramtek, and District Nagpur. It is his case that he was appointed in 1983 by Sub-Divisional Officer who has competent to appoint employees on daily wages and he was getting Rs 14 per day for his work in the department. He states that his name was included on nominal muster rolls (NMR). He worked at Nagpur from 2nd April, 1983 to 23rd August 1991 and thereafter from 24th August, 1991 at sub division number 4 in Road branch till February, 1992. He was again transferred to steal and cement branch of sub division number one and it is his case that since 24th August, 1991 he is working at Totaladoh as labour. He contends that as per CRTEE (CONVERTED REGULAR TEMPORARY ESTABLISHMENT) Rules the complainant was taken on permanent basis in the department and was made regular. As per provisions of Rules he should have been made regular after five years and hence from 2nd April, 1988 he became regular employee. As per the list of daily wage employees submitted by petitioners, the State Government issued an order on 21st March, 1992 and he was appointed as regular labour with effect from 2nd April, 1989. He points out that respondent No. 5 (present respondent No. 2) was junior to him but he was granted post of clerk and name of complainant was recommended for the post of labour and his said junior employee got the post of Clerk. He points out that pay scale of a clerk is 950-20-1150 efficiency bar 25-1500. A labour gets salary in pay scale of 750-20-870 efficiency bar-14-920. It is further his case that he has studied up to B.Com. Final while said respondent is only Matric. He therefore contended that his employer has indulged in unfair labour practice falling under item number 5 (favouralism partiality to one set of workers regardless of merit) and 9 (failure to implement agreement, settlement or award) of Schedule IV of the Act. Hence after seeking declaration that his employer has indulged in unfair labour practice, he sought declaration and direction that he should be appointed as Clerk with effect from 1st May, 1992 and should be given all consequential benefits accordingly.

3. His complaint was opposed by employer (present petitioners) who denied all these facts. Respondents before Industrial Court contended that the complainant was appointed as a labour and was transferred only in that capacity they pointed out that the complainant was never allowed to sign N.M.R. though his name was included in it for attendance purposes. After completion of five years of service, his name was submitted to Government for approval for bringing his on C.R.T.E. and after approval he was taken as labour on C.R.T.E. with effect from 2nd April,

Click Here to Read the rest of this document