The denial of benefits to temporary employees constituted a continuing wrong, allowing relief beyond the 90-day limitation period. The recovery of arrears was restricted to a period of three years prior to the filing of the complaint.

JUDGMENT :

1. Rule. Rule made returnable forthwith and with the consent of the learned Counsel for the parties heard finally.

2. The petitioner - undertaking takes exception to a judgment and order dated 17th October, 2019 passed by the President, Industrial Court, Maharashtra, Mubmai, in Complaint (ULP) No.183 of 2014 whereby the complaint preferred by the respondents – complainants under Items 5 and 9 of the Schedule IV of the Maharashtra Recognition of Trade Unions and Prevention of Unfair Labour Practices Act, 1971 (“the Act, 1971”) came to be partly allowed declaring that the petitioner has committed unfair labour practices under Item 9 of Schedule IV of the Act, 1971 and directing the petitioner to pay inter alia increments to complainant Nos.2 to 18 from the date of appointment till the date of their permanency and grant privilege leave and sick leave on pro-rata basis as specified in Clause 4(2)(iii) @ (a) and (b) of the Standing Orders, if not already granted.

3. Background facts can be stated in brief as under:

(a) The petitioner is a statutory body established under the provisions of Mumbai Municipal Corporation Act, 1888 (“the MMC Act”). The petitioner supplies electricity to the residents of the Mumbai City and provides transport services to the inhabitants of Mumbai City and sub-urban areas. Respondent No.1 is a Union registered under the Trade Unions Act, 1926. Respondent Nos.2 to 18 are the employees of the petitioner.

(b) To meet the exigencies of the situation the petitioner had created 16 temporary posts of Draughtsmen on the establishment of Planning Department of the Electricity Supply Branch. In the year 1996 the respondents were appointed against those temporary posts; initially for the period of six months. The appointment order made it clear that the respondents were appointed on temporary post. Eventually, during the period 1998 to 2002 respondent Nos.2 to 18 were confirmed as and when the vacancies arose in the permanent cadre. The last of the respondent nos.2 to 18 came to be confirmed on 21st October, 2002.

(c) The respondents filed a complaint with the allegations that respondent Nos.2 to 18 were appointed on temporary post despite the work being of perennial nature and artificial break of one day was given after a lapse of six months so as to deprive respondent Nos.2 to 18 of the benefit of permanency. The said modus operandi was stated to be in violation of the standing orders and, thus, constituted an unfair labour practice. It was further alleged that under the terms of Clause 4(2)(iii) @ (a) of the Standing Orders, employees who had worked for 240 days continuously were entitled to annual increment, leave, leave travel concession and other benefits. In order to unjustifiably deprive respondent Nos.2 to 18 from availing the said benefits, respondent Nos.2 to 18 were given artificial break in service so that they could not render 240 days continuous service. Instead of giving the aforesaid benefits, respondent Nos.2 to 18 were given benefit of one leave for 20 days of work. This again constituted an unfair labour practice, being in infringement of the standing orders, under Item No.9 of Schedule IV of the Act, 1971.

(d) The petitioner resisted the complaint. The allegation of unfair labour practices were categorically denied. It was contended that respondent Nos.2 to 18 were appointed on purely temporary posts. As and when the vacancies arose in the permanent cadre, the services of respondent Nos.2 to 18 were duly regularized. Thus, there was no unfair labour practice attributable to the petitioner.

(e) The complaint was contested on the ground of delay and laches. It was contended that there was a delay of 12 to 14 years in raising the alleged dispute about not granting the permanancy and the benefits which were admissible to the temporary employees under the standing orders. Since the complaint of unfair labour practice was required to be made within 90 days of the accrual of cause of action, the com