( 1 ) THIS petition challenges the judgment and order dated 13th September, 2001 passed by the Industrial Court, Pune in Complaint (ULP) No. 577 of 1998 dismissing the complaint. The complaint filed by the petitioner was under Items 5, 6, 9 and 10 of Schedule IV of the Maharashtra recognition of Trade Unions and Prevention of Unfair Labour Practices Act, 1971 (hereinafter referred to as "the Act" ).

( 2 ) THE petitioner joined the services as a forest worker on 13th July, 1995. He was required to do all the work that permanent employees were doing in the forest Department. However, despite completion of 240 days in service, the respondents did not make the petitioner permanent in employment. The petitioner was not paid wages which were payable to the permanent employees. The petitioner therefore filed complaint (ULP) No. 577 of 1998 under Items 5, 6, 9 and 10 of Schedule IV of the Act before the Industrial Court, Pune on 30th september, 1998. Written Statement was filed by the respondents on 25th february, 1999. The main contention raised in the Written Statement was that, although the petitioner had completed 240 days in service, it was not possible to make him permanent since he was working on a scheme introduced by the government. Minimum wages were also being paid to the workman and, therefore, there was no question of payment of any further amount. It was also pleaded that there were no vacant sanctioned posts and, therefore, the petitioner could not be absorbed as a permanent employee. It was pleaded that the benefits of the permanent employees could not be extended to the petitioner in view of the government Resolution dated 31st January, 1996. The petitioner examined himself before the Industrial Court and deposed that he had completed 240 days in service. He also placed on record a chart showing his record ever since he joined service on 13th July, 1995 which established that he had worked more than 240 days in each year except for the year 1995. After recording evidence, the Industrial Court has dismissed the Complaint principally on three grounds. The Industrial Court found that interpretation of Item 6 of Schedule IV of the Act does not lead to the conclusion that every time an employee completes 240 days in service, he will necessarily be entitled to permanency. The Industrial Court has further held that there must be cogent evidence on record to show that the employer had continued the workman for years together as a temporary employee deliberately and with a view to deprive him of the status and privileges available to a permanent employee. The Industrial Court by relying on various judgments of the Supreme Court has held that regularisation of an employee is not a concomitant of his having worked for 240 days continuously in the service. The Industrial Court has further observed that payment of wages which were less than those payable to permanent employees, is not an unfair labour practice since the workman was admittedly employed as a temporary worker and, therefore, there was no question of extending benefits available to permanent employees to him.

( 3 ) THE main submission of the learned Advocate for the petitioner is that the Industrial Court has dismissed the complaint despite the judgment in the case of Chief Conservator of Forests vs. Jagannath Maruti Kondhare, JT 1995 (9) SC 465. Furthermore, this Court in the case of Divisional Manager, Division wanprakalpa Office (West), Forest Development Corporation of Maharashtra ltd. , Nashik vs. Chimna Arjun Jadhav, 2001 (4) Mh. LJ. 97, has held in a similar situation where the complaints have been filed by various employees that they were entitled to be made permanent.

( 4 ) MR. Vanarse for the respondents submits that it is true that the workman has completed 240 days in service. However, there are no sanctioned posts as the budgetary allowance do not permit of the appointment of the petitioner as a permanent employee.

( 5 ) UNDISPUTEDLY, the petition