JUDGMENT :

Ravindra V. Ghuge, J.

The petitioner is aggrieved by the judgment and order delivered by the Industrial Court, Jalgaon dated 30/04/2002, by which Complaint (ULP) NO.846/1999 (Old No.43/1993) is partly allowed. The respondent is granted benefits of permanency from 1986 onwards.

2. After this Court had heard the learned Advocate for the parties, the petition was admitted and Rule on interim relief was made returnable by 6 (six) weeks. By order dated 03/09/2007, rule on interim relief was discharged and the petitioner/employer was not granted any relief.

3. This matter was heard on 08/05/2019 in the special drive in vacation for taking up old final hearing matters and was posted today for passing orders by the consent of the parties so as to enable them to collect instructions from the respective clients.

4. The respondent/original complainant was working with the petitioner factory from September 1981 as a 'weaver' in the Cloth Department. Since, he worked continuously as a Badli worker for several years, he preferred Complaint (ULP) No.43/1993 (New No.846/1999) before the Industrial Court at Jalgaon seeking permanency in employment of the petitioner. It was alleged that the Management was making him work continuously as a Badli worker for depriving him of regularization. It was out of a sense of insecurity and apprehension that he would be exploited, that he approached the Industrial Court. He also pleaded that he was being given assurances of regularization and when he noticed that the said assurances were only for killing time, that he felt the necessity of approaching the Industrial Court.

5. The Management opposed the complaint by contending that he was a Badli Kamgar and could not be regularized in employment. It was denied that junior employees were granted regularization. It was denied that he had worked continuously and had completed 240 days in continuous employment in each calendar year. The Management, however, stated that it has a Selection Committee of 5 members, who scrutinized the work of Badli Workers over a period of 3 years and the Management grants regularization to those Badli workers, who worked satisfactorily.

6. The Industrial Court considered the pleadings of the parties and the entire oral and documentary evidence adduced before it and concluded that the complainant deserves regularization in employment from 1986 onwards.

7. Learned Advocate Mr.Sangit submits that the petitioner/Textile Mill, which is an establishment under the National Textile Corporation (For short, NTC), was permanently closed down in 2008. Workers, who were on the permanent rolls of the factory, were paid closure compensation. He regrets to state that he is not aware as to whether such closure compensation was paid as per the provisions of the Industrial Disputes Act or whether they were paid amounts over and above the prescribed compensation under the Industrial Disputes Act, 1947.

8. The learned Advocate for the respondent/employee points out from the affidavit in reply that he was in employment as on the date of the filing of the writ petition and was continued in service. The affidavit in reply dated 26/06/2003 would indicate that he was in employment.

9. Learned Advocate for the petitioner has also raised an objection with regard to the maintainability of the ULP complaint filed by the complainant worker on the ground that there was a re-cognized union active in the petitioner/factory. Being a textile industry, the Bombay Industrial Relations Act, 1946 was applicable. The complainant should have approached the Industrial Court through the recognized Union. Section 21 and 22 of the MRTU and PULP Act, 1971 would restrict the role of an individual in the face of the existence of a re-cognized union.

10. The learned Advocate for the original complainant submits that as the re-cognized union did not espouse his cause, he had approached the Conciliation Officer in his individual capacity. If he is precluded from raising any grievan