JUDGMENT :

1. Rule. Rule made returnable forthwith. With the consent of the learned Counsel for the parties, heard finally.

2. The Petitioner, a retired daily wager, who was employed with Solapur Municipal Corporation – Respondent No.1, has assailed the legality, propriety and correctness of a judgment and order dated 17 January 2022 passed by the learned Member, Industrial Court, Solapur in Complaint (ULP) No.15 of 2016, whereby the complaint came to be dismissed on the ground that it was barred by principle of res-judicata.

3. The background facts leading to this Petition can be stated, in brief, as under :

3.1 The Petitioner was appointed as peon on daily wages on 3 September

1992 in the office of the Transport Administrator – Respondent No.3. In the year 2010 the Petitioner was transferred to the office of Health Engineer, Public Health and Water Supply Department – Respondent No.4, a department of Solapur Municipal Corporation. On 10 February 2016, the Petitioner was transferred back to the Transport department. The Petitioner stood retired on 29 February 2016.

3.2 A week prior to the retirement, the Petitioner filed a complaint (ULP)

No.15 of 2016 alleging unfair labour practices under Items 5, 6, 9 and 10 of Schedule IV of the Maharashtra Recognition of Trade Unions and Prevention of Unfair Labour Practices Act, 1971 (the Act, 1971) before the Industrial Court at Solapur.

3.3 The substance of the complaint of the Petitioner was that the Petitioner had completed 240 days of service with the Transport Department in the year 1998 itself. Yet, despite having rendered 23 years of continuous and uninterrupted service, the Petitioner was made to retire as a daily wager only. The Respondents availed services of the Petitioner as a temporary workman for years together with the object of depriving him of the status and privileges of a permanent employee. In the process, the Respondents also indulged in invidious discrimination amongst the employees by depriving the Petitioner of the benefits, which were extended to other similarly situated employees.

3.4 It was specifically alleged that the Petitioner was deprived of the

remuneration which was admissible to the post of Peon under awards and the recommendations of the Pay Commissions. Thus, there was failure to implement award and settlements. By exploiting the vulnerable position of the Petitioner, the Respondents also indulged in acts of force and compelled him to work for a meager remuneration for 23 years. There was a breach of principle of equal pay for equal work also. The Petitioner, thus, prayed for grant of permanency with all consequential benefits with retrospective effect, grant him pay and allowances in terms of the recommendations of the Pay Commissions with retrospective effect and pay arrears of pay and allowance and also a declaration that the Respondents had indulged in unfair labour practices under Items 5, 6, 9 and 10 of Schedule IV of the Act, 1971 and a direction to them to cease and desist from indulging in those unfair labour practices.

3.5 Written statements were filed on behalf of Respondent Nos.1, 2 and 4, and Respondent No.3. The Respondents contested the claim of the Petitioner. It was, inter alia, contended that the Petitioner was never appointed as Peon and his status was that of a daily wager only. It was denied that the Respondents indulged in any unfair labour practices. Respondent Nos.1, 2 and 4 also contended that the Petitioner had filed complaint (ULP) No.56 of 2005 for identical reliefs. The said complaint came to be dismissed by the Industrial Court by a judgment and order dated 21 December 2012 on merits. Therefore, the said decision operated as res-judicata and the instant complaint was not maintainable.

3.6 The Petitioner led evidence. The Respondents did not adduce any evidence in the rebuttal. After appraisal of the pleadings and evidence, the learned Member, Industrial Court, Solapur, was persuaded to dismiss the Complaint, principally on the grou