The main legal point established in the judgment is that for entitlement of permanency, completion of 240 days of service in each calendar year and for a continuous period of 5 years is required under the Maharashtra Recognition of Trade Unions and Prevention of Unfair Labour Practices Act, 1971.

JUDGMENT :

1. This is a bunch of two Writ Petitions. Writ Petition No. 10718 of 2016 is filed by the Government of Maharashtra through Secretary, Agriculture Department, Mantralaya, Mumbai along with Deputy Director of Agriculture – Kolhapur and the Agricultural Officer, Taluka Seed Farm Centre, Radhanagari, Kolhapur being the Petitioners to challenge the impugned judgment & order dated 24. 07.2015 passed by the Industrial Court No. 1, Kolhapur in Complaint (ULP) No. 135/2008. Respondents in this Writ Petitions are 9 persons who are the original complainants namely (1) Gundu Vishnu Chandam, (2) Droupadi Mahipati Patil (since deceased), (3) Vasanti Laxman Moraskar, (4) Baban Dinkar Sankpal, (5) Shankar Rau Kamble, (6) Maruti Pandurang Sangaonkar, (7) Kerba Hari Dhere, (8) Gunda Tukaram Davar and (9) Namdev Pandurang Patade. The impugned judgement & award is passed by the learned Industrial Court on original Complaint (ULP) No. 135/2008 filed by the 9 Respondents whose names are stated above. This Complaint was filed under Section 28 r/w Items 9 and 10 of Schedule IV of the Maharashtra Recognition of Trade Unions and Prevention of Unfair Labour Practices Act, 1971 (for short, “the Said Act”) alleging unfair labour practices and seeking a direction to the Petitioners herein to continue the Respondents as daily wagers, remove disparity in payment of wages, pay equal wages as paid to permanent workmen and to pay differential amount of wages since their date of appointment.

2. Second Writ Petition is Writ Petition No. 3724 of 2023 filed by 9 Respondents in the above Writ Petition who are Petitioners therein against the State Government of Maharashtra. In this Writ Petition filed in the year 2023, Petitioners have prayed for the same reliefs which were prayed for and agitated in Complaint (ULP) No. 135/2008 filed before the Industrial Court, Kolhapur and further seeking status of permanency since their date of appointment.

3. For the sake of convenience, the first Petition i.e. Writ Petition No. 10718 of 2016 will be considered for narration of facts and parties shall be referred as Petitioners (State Government of Maharashtra) and Respondents i.e. 9 workmen. Facts are identical in both the cases and therefore both Writ Petitions are heard together by consent of parties finally. Interim Application No. 1687 of 2019 filed in Writ Petition No. 10718 of 2016 is also decided along with the Writ Petitions.

4. Before I advert to the facts which are necessary for adjudication of the present two Writ Petitions it needs to be mentioned at the outset that Respondents (9 workmen) had filed Writ Petition Nos. 4753 of 1996, 223 of 1997 and 225 of 1997 along with other workman for the same reliefs which are prayed for by a workmen in Writ Petition No. 3724 of 2023. By common order dated 15.01.2008, this Court (Coram : B.H. Marlappalle, J.) dismissed the Writ Petitions by returning specific findings to the effect that the 9 workmen who are referred to herein as Respondents have not completed a total of 240 days in any year right from 1986-1990 since their engagement in the service of Petitioners and hence leave alone the benefit of permanency, none of them would be entitled to the benefit under Kalelkar Award or for that matter Badkas Award. This Court has also returned specific findings in respect of the Respondents that none of them had completed a period of 240 days of service even for the period 1991 to 2007 since at no point of time, these workmen were employed for 240 days in any calendar year. This Court has held that these workmen were seasonal employees engaged on seasonal basis during the years 1986 to 2007 and there was no evidence placed before the Industrial Court that they had completed 240 days of service in every calendar year during the last 5 years before the complaint was filed. This Court categorically held that merely because the Respondents were continued for more than 5 years as seasonal employees, they did not make out a case of