IMPORTANT POINT
The judgment emphasizes the requirement for fulfillment of eligibility criteria for regularization and the permissibility of ordering regularization by an industrial adjudicator in accordance with the Scheme formulated by the employer.

JUDGMENT :

1. Rule. Rule made returnable forthwith. With the consent of the learned counsel appearing for the parties, the Petition is taken up for hearing.

2. By this Petition, Petitioner challenges the Judgment and Order dated 23 September 2022, passed by Learned Member, Industrial Court, Nashik in Complaint (ULP) No. 71 of 2014. By the impugned order, the Labour Court has rejected the Complaint filed by Petitioner seeking the benefit of permanency in service with effect from 1 June 2012.

3. The facts of the case are in a narrow compass. It is Petitioner’s case that he came to be engaged in the services of the Respondent-Corporation, which is fully owned and managed by the Forest Department of the State of Maharashtra in the year 1999. His initial engagement was with Project Forest Ranger, Boripada Center, Harsul. That, he completed more than 240 days of service in each year. The Government of Maharashtra, Revenue and Forest Department issued a Government Resolution dated 16 October, 2012 for absorption daily wage workers who had completed 240 days of service in any of the 5 years during 1 November, 1994 to 30 June, 2004. It is Petitioner's case that he fulfills the criteria prescribed in the GR dated 16 October 2012. Since he was not absorbed in his service, he filed Complaint (ULP) No. 71 of 2014 before Industrial Court, Nashik seeking absorption in service with effect from 1 June 2012 in accordance with the GR dated 16 October 2012. The Complaint was resisted by the Respondent- Corporation by filing a reply. Both sides led evidence in support of their respective contentions. The Industrial Court delivered Judgment and Order dated 23 September 2022 rejecting the Complaint filed by Petitioner. Aggrieved by the decision of the Industrial Court, Petitioner has filed the present Petition.

4. Mr. Karnik, the learned counsel appearing for Petitioner would submit that the Labour Court has erred in rejecting Petitioner’s Complaint. That the Labour Court has erroneously held that the Petitioner does not satisfy the required criteria enumerated in the GR dated 16 October 2012. Mr. Karnik would invite my attention to the statement issued by Project Forest Ranger, Boripada Center, Harsul showing that Petitioner has rendered more than 240 days of service during the years 1999-2000 to 2003-2004. That the Labour Court has ignored the said statement issued by the Forest Ranger while recording the erroneous finding that Petitioner does not satisfy the criteria enumerated in GR dated 16 October, 2012. Mr. Karnik would submit that Petitioner still continues to work with the Respondent and his services cannot be exploited by treating him as daily wager by the Respondent-Corporation. He would rely upon the judgment and order dated 23 September 2022 passed by the Industrial Court on the same day in the case of Shri. Nilesh Manshiram Raut, whose complaint is allowed by the Industrial Court. Mr. Karnik would submit that in spite of the Petitioner being similarly situated, his Complaint is erroneously dismissed by the Industrial Court. He would pray for setting aside the order of the Industrial Court.

5. Per contra Mr. Kapadnis, the learned counsel appearing for the Respondent-Corporation would oppose the Petition and submit that the services of Petitioner have been utilized as when required. That, he has not been in continuous service of the Respondent-Corporation. That, he does not satisfy the criteria prescribed in the GR dated 16 October 2012. Mr. Kapadnis would further submit that there is no post available for absorption of services of Petitioner. That there is no master-servant relationship between Petitioner and Respondent-Corporation as Petitioner has never been paid any salary or issued with any written Appointment Order. Mere payment of daily wages in the absence of issuance of Appointment Order does not make Petitioner an employee of Res