IMPORTANT POINT
The court established that regularization of daily wage workers requires adherence to specific government resolutions and the existence of sanctioned posts, not merely the completion of five years of service.

JUDGMENT :

SANDEEP V. MARNE, J.

1. These petitions are filed by Petitioner No. 2 through the Deputy Director, Social Forestry Division, Solapur challenging the Judgment and Order dated 31 March 2001 passed by the Industrial Court, Solapur, by which complaints filed by the Respondents have been partly allowed and Petitioners are directed to consider the length of continuous services put by them till amendment of complaints on 21 July 1999 for the purpose of grant of benefit of permanency. Petitioners are accordingly directed to issue orders for permanency of the Respondents with continuity of service i.e. consequential benefits, without backwages.

2. Afforestation of barren lands is a program undertaken by the Government of India, which later assumed the name ‘Social Forestry’. The program was soon implemented by various State Governments, including the State of Maharashtra through its Department of Revenue and Forests. The scheme for social forestry included inter-alia the activity of plantation on the lands made available by Gram Panchayats, Public Works Department and other private institutions. For the purpose of undertaking the work of plantation, grass cutting and maintenance of trees/plants, workers were engaged on daily wage basis, as and when needed. Under the program, Petitioners implemented Social Forestation Scheme on the concerned land for three years, whereafter the land was returned to the respective owners.

3. In the above background, Respondents were engaged as daily wage workers under the social forestry program during various years ranging from 1985 to 1991. In the year 1992, Petitioner issued orders transferring the services of Respondents from one village to another. In case of Respondent-Vijaya Balbhim Mali (Writ Petition No. 3373 of 2002) who was working since the year 1990, transfer order was issued on 30 January 1992 from Matsya Beach to Akole Budruk. Respondents got aggrieved by their respective transfer orders and instituted complaints of unfair labour practice before the Industrial Court, Solapur challenging the transfer order. In their complaints, Respondents filed applications for temporary injunction. The complaint as well as application for temporary injunction were resisted by Petitioners by filing their Written Statement contending that Respondents were engaged merely as ‘seasonal workers’ during monsoon season for undertaking the work of plantation, grass cutting and maintenance of plants. That the work is not of regular nature. The Industrial Court passed interim order dated 17 February 1992 directing Petitioners to maintain status-quo in respect of the services of the Respondents until further orders.

4. It appears that though the complaints were filed challenging mere transfer orders, that too of temporary workers, the complaints remained pending for a considerable period of time and in the meantime, services of the Respondents were continued. It appears that Respondents sought inspection of records relating to their services. Accordingly, the person appointed by the Court to carry out inspection and submitted his report in respect of each of the complainants to certify their services prior to filing of complaints. On 21 July 1992, Respondents filed applications for amendment of Complaints by incorporating their grievances relating to grant of permanency. The amendment was allowed by order dated 12 January 2000. Thus, Respondents claimed the relief of permanency in the amendment application on the strength of completion of 240 days of service, from the year of initial engagement.

5. Both the sides led evidence in support of their respective claims. After considering the pleadings, documentary and oral evidence, the learned Member, Industrial Court proceeded to allow the complaint partly directing consideration of services of the Respondents upto the date of filing of application for amendment dated 21 July 1999 for grant of permanency in service. The Industrial Court has accordingly directed Peti