JUDGMENT :

N.J. JAMADAR, J.

1. Since a common question of law: whether the services rendered on daily wage basis qualify for the pensionable service, after the employee is made permanent, arises for determination in these petitions, in an identical factual backdrop, both the petitions are heard and decided by this judgment.

2. Rule. Rule made returnable forthwith. With the consent of the learned counsel for the parties, heard finally.

3. Mr. Tanaji Kadam, the respondent in Writ Petition No. 12848 of 2022 and Mr. Jaysingh Kadam, the respondent in Writ Petition No. 13157 of 2022 were appointed as sweepers with Vita Nagar Parishad, the petitioner, a local authority, on 20th May, 1985. The respondents filed complaint before the Industrial Court at Kolhapur alleging unfair labour practices in not giving the benefit of permanency. During the pendency of those complaints, the petitioner and respondents arrived at a settlement. In accordance with the terms of settlement, the parties agreed that the respondents would be absorbed in the services of the petitioner and made permanent.

4. Pursuant to the settlement arrived at between the parties, the Director of Municipal Administration passed an order giving approval to the proposal to absorb the respondents on the permanent roll of the petitioner subject to certain terms and conditions with effect from the date of the said order. It was, inter-alia, stipulated that the past services rendered on daily wage basis will not be reckoned for financial or service benefit. The Standing Committee of the petitioner Nagar Parishad, in its meeting dated 5th February, 2001, passed a resolution to give appointment to the respondents on the regular establishment of the petitioner subject to the condition that the respondents would withdraw the complaints filed before the Industrial Court.

5. On 13th February, 2021, the Chief Officer of the petitioner accordingly passed an order to absorb the respondents on the permanent post of sweeper with effect from 18th January, 2001 subject to the condition that the respondents would withdraw the complaints filed before the Industrial Court, Kolhapur and the past services rendered by the respondents on daily wage basis would not be counted for any financial or service benefit. Both the respondents retired upon attaining the age of superannuation, on 31st May, 2010.

6. Initially the respondents raised a dispute about the incorrect calculation of gratuity only from the date of their appointment on the permanent post i.e. 13th January, 2001. The Controlling Authority under the Payment of Gratuity Act passed an order to pay gratuity by taking into account the services rendered by the respondents as daily wagers. The petitioner’s challenge to the said order was not entertained. Thereafter the respondents sought grant of pension in accordance with the provisions contained in Maharashtra Civil Services (Pension) Rules, 1982 (Pension Rules, 1982).

7. The respondents claimed that they were entitled to pension as the services rendered by them on daily wage basis since the year 1985 would qualify for the pensionable service under Rule 30 of the Pension Rules 1982. As the request and representation of the respondents were not favourably considered by the petitioner, Mr. Tanaji Kadam filed Complaint (ULP) No. 96 of 2017 and Mr. Jaysingh Kadam, Complaint (ULP) No. 95 of 2017 before the Industrial Court at Sangli alleging unfair labour practices under Item 9 and 10 of Schedule IV of the Maharashtra Recognition of Trade Unions and Prevention of Unfair Labour Practices Act, 1971 (MRTU & PULP Act, 1971). It was, inter alia, alleged that the refusal to grant pension despite the claim of the respondents being covered by Rule 30 of the Pension Rules amounted to unfair labour practices under Items No. 9 and 10.

8. The petitioner resisted the complaints on the premise that the respondents were absorbed in the service of the petitioner, pursuant to the settlement arrived at between the parties. I