Heard learned Counsel for the parties.

2. This petition challenges an order passed by the Industrial Court at Pune dismissing a complaint of unfair labour practice filed under Item Nos. 5, 6 and 9 of Schedule IV of the MRTU & PULP Act, 1971.

3. The Petitioner is a sanitation worker ('safai kamgar') working for a hospital known as Talera Hospital, Chinchwad. It is alleged that Respondent No.1 Municipal Corporation and its medical officer have the responsibility to manage this hospital, as it is owned by the Municipal Corporation. A total number of about 24 sanitation workers were working in this hospital, including the Petitioner herein. It was their case that they were deliberately employed in the hospital through contractors and their engagements were purposely kept as temporary for years together. It is their case that they were in real terms employees of Respondent No.1 Corporation; that they were working continuously for more than 240 days in a year for a number of years and still benefits of permanency such as leave, bonus salary, etc. were denied to them. Out of these 24 workers, 20 workers filed a complaint, being Complaint (ULP) No.177 of 2005. Under an interim order passed in their case, the complainants were continued in service. The Petitioner, however, did not go to Court at that stage, but, according to her, was continued in service on their own by the Respondents. When the Respondents decided to terminate her services, the Petitioner claims to have filed the present complaint and sought a declaration that the Respondents had engaged in unfair labour practices listed in Items 5, 6 and 9 of Schedule IV of the MRTU & PULP Act. The Industrial Court in its impugned order passed in the Petitioner's complaint held, firstly, that model standing orders, under which permanency and other benefits were claimed by the Petitioner, were not applicable to the establishment where the Petitioner claimed to be working, and secondly, that the complainant had not proved any unfair labour practice on the part of the Respondents.

4. On the question of applicability of model standing orders, the Court held that a local body such as Respondent No.1 is not an industrial establishment as defined in the Industrial Employment (Standing Orders) Act, 1946; and even otherwise, hospital is not included in the list of services and establishments in the definition provided under Section 2 of the Payment of Wages Act and, accordingly, provisions of Industrial Establishment (Standing Orders) Act did not apply to the hospital in which the Petitioner was working. The Court, in the premises, held that the relevant standing order, namely, the order providing for permanency upon completion of 240 days continuous service in a year, did not apply to the Petitioner's case. On the issue of unfair labour practice, the Industrial Court held that since model standing orders were not applicable in the Petitioner's case, denial of benefit of permanency cannot be termed as an unfair labour practice under item 6 of Schedule IV of the Act. Secondly, the Court held that the appointment of the Petitioner was purely temporary; she was not even appointed as per prescribed rules and, in the premises, even if she were to be treated as having completed years of service, she would not be entitled to the benefit of permanency in accordance with the law laid down in the case of Secretary, State of Karnataka vs. Umadevi, (2006) 4 Supreme Court Cases 1 and thus, denial of benefits of permanency cannot be termed as an unfair labour practice under item 6 of Schedule IV. As for item 5 of Schedule IV, the Court held that there was nothing to show that the Respondent Corporation had made any discrimination between the Petitioner and other casual employees similarly situated and no unfair labour practice could be ascribed to the Respondent Corporation in this behalf. On the ground that model standing orders were not applicable, even the case of unfair labour practice under it