The court emphasized the importance of the nature of work and the employer's authority to create permanent posts in determining claims for permanency and unfair labor practices.

R.V. Ghuge, J.

1. I have heard Shri Kulkarni, the learned Advocate for the petitioner and Shri N.B. Jadhav, learned Advocate appearing on behalf of the respondents in 23 writ petitions, as mentioned above, at length.

2. In view of the order that I propose to pass, I am not formally issuing notices to the respondents. I have heard the learned Advocate Mr. Jadhav on behalf of the respondents workers.

3. The petitioner Municipal Council, Tuljapur was the original respondent in all the complaints before the Industrial Court at Latur and is the petitioner in all these matters. A common judgment and order dated 28/03/2014 in 30 writ petitions and the judgment and order dated 02/05/2014 in WP No. 11279/2014 are questioned in these petitions. Both the judgments are practically identical. The issue involved is identical and therefore I am deciding these petitions together.

4. The respondents had preferred several complaints before the Industrial Court at Latur under the M.R.T.U. and P.U.L.P. Act of 1971 (In short, State Act). In all the complaints, the respondents had invoked Item Nos. 5, 6, 9 and 10 of Schedule IV of the State Act. All of them had claimed permanency, benefits incidental and consequential thereto and had also sought a declaration of unfair labour practices (ULP) against the petitioner.

5. Evidence was recorded in all the complaints and the litigating parties had requested the Court to permit recording of oral evidence in complaint (ULP) No. 85/2011. In 24 complaints, the complainants had led their oral evidence. In 6 other cases, the complainants led evidence separately and in 5 cases, the complainants had adopted the evidence recorded by their co-complainants. It was at the request of the litigating parties that the Industrial Court took up all the complaints together for hearing and were disposed of by a common judgment.

6. The contention of the workers was that they have been working since 1993-1994 with the petitioner Municipal Council. They were treated as temporaries and were paid consolidated wages. They were deployed in the Water Supply, Sanitation, Library and the Administration departments of the Municipal council. Some of them were also teachers. All of them have put in more than 10 years in the continuous and un-interrupted service of the petitioner.

7. The workers while claiming permanency and benefits incidental thereto, had invoked the provisions of the Industrial Employment Standing Orders Act 1946 and had placed reliance upon the Model Standing Orders framed thereunder. Grievance was that though work is continuously available and the same has been performed by all these workers, the petitioner has deprived them of the benefits of permanency and has deliberately continued them as temporaries or casuals with an intent and object of depriving them of the benefits of permanency.

8. It was also alleged that the petitioner was indulging in favoritism to one set of workers regardless of their merits. Since permanency was not bestowed upon the workers, it was alleged that the petitioners have failed to implement a settlement, agreement or award. It was, therefore, prayed that a declaration of unfair labour practices (ULP) be made against the petitioners.

9. The petitioner, who was respondent in all these matters, had led evidence through its Chief Officer. It was specifically brought on record that the petitioner Municipal Council does not have the power to create posts and cause recruitment without following the due procedure of Law and without obtaining the sanction from the Directorate of Municipal Corporation. It was, therefore, contended that since it was a growing Municipal Council, whose population was roughly about 20,000/- in the year 1988, the services in the nature of Water Supply, Sanitation, Public Library and the Municipal Administration were required to be offered to the growing population. Since the posts were not created by the Govt., the petitioner had no option but to continue the respondents as