Daily wagers do not hold any legal right to claim permanency without compliance with appointment rules and existence of sanctioned vacant posts.

A.P. DESHPANDE, J .:

1. These Letters Patent appeals involved a common question of fact and Law and hence the Appeals are heard together and are being disposed of by this common judgment.

2. Few facts that are relevant for adjudication of the issues are narrated hereinbelow. The appellant in all these appeals is the State of Maharashtra, through The Dairy Manager, Government Milk Scheme, Chiplun who appointed the respondents herein as daily wagers in the establishment of the dairy on payment of Rs. 81.29 Ps. Per day. The respondents daily wagers have been in service of the appellant for a longer period running between 12 to 20 years. As the respondents were not granted permanancy in serbvice, they filed a complaint before the Industrial Court under Item 5,6 and 9 of Scheduled IV of the M.R.T.U. & P.U.L.P. Act 1971. It was contended before the Industrial Court that the daily wagers were not granted permanency with an object to deprive them of the benefits of permanencny which is an unfair labour practice. It was also contended that the daily wage employees are entitled to permanency on account of they having put in 240 days of service in the preceeding year. The appellants herein opposed the claim by filing a written statement. The appellant State averred in the written statement that there do not exist sanctioned vacant posts for grant of permanency to the daily wagers. It is specifically averred that only if sanctioned posts exist , then and then alone request for permancncy could be considered and in the absence of sanctioned vacant posts, it is impermissible to direct conferment of status of permanency on the daily wagers. Completion of 240 days by itself would not entitled the daily wagers to claim permanency. It is also pleaded by the appellant that the daily wagers are not entitled to permanency and that the appellant has not committed any unfair labour practice.

3. The Industrial Court has on appreciation of facts recorded a finding that there does not exist sanctioned vacant posts. However it observed that : “it is for the Respondent (Dairy Manager) to send proposal to the Government for sanction of the said posts by the Government. There is no any averment in the affidavit of respondent or stand taken in the written statement that such a proposal for sanction of the post has been sent by the respondent to Government but no sanction is accorded by the Government. Unless a proposal is sent, the Government will not suo moto accord sanction to these posts. I do not find any justified reason on the part of the respondent for denying the benefits of permanency.” It is thus clear that the Industrial Court expected the Dairy Manager to forward a proposal to the Government and seek sanction to the posts with a view to accommodate the daily wagers. Fact remains that no sanctioned vacant posts exists as of now. Despite recording the said finding, it concluded that the State has indulged in committing an unfair labour practice. it also held that the daily wagers being engaged for years together, ought to have been granted permancney and having not so done, faulted the State Government. It is held by the Industrial Court that the Standing orders provide for grant of permanency on completion of 240 days and breach of the Standing orders amount to failure to implement the agreement or settlement. It is on this premise, that the action on the part of the appellant in declining to grant permanency has been faulted with. The Industrial Court after declaring that the appellant has indulged in unfair labour practice, has issued direction to the Appellant, forthwith to cease and desist from engaging in such unfair labour practices. A further direction is issued to grant permanency to all the complainants from the date of completion of 240 days of their service and extend all benefits of