The absence of a formal employment contract and voluntary engagement on an honorarium basis negates the existence of an employer-employee relationship, precluding claims for permanency.

JUDGMENT :

(SANDEEP V. MARNE, J.)

1. Petitioners have filed this Petition challenging judgment and order dated 14 August 2001 passed by the learned Member, Industrial Court, Satara dismissing Complaint (ULP) Nos. 12 to 17 of 1990 and 156 to 169 of 1990. The Complaints were filed under Items 6, 9 and 10 of Schedule IV of the Maharashtra Recognition of Trade Unions and Prevention of Unfair Labour Practices Act, 1971 (MRTU & PULP Act) seeking declaration that Petitioners have acquired status of permanent employees of Respondents with all consequential benefits.

2. Briefly stated, facts of the case are that the Government of Maharashtra had declared a policy for encouraging studies in Marathi literature and other fields by taking suitable measures. In his speech made on 6 July 1960, the then Governor of Maharashtra had made an announcement that the State would declare policy for encouragement of research in the fields of literature, history and culture of Maharashtra. Accordingly, the State Government decided to establish State Board for Literature and Culture and accordingly issued Government Resolution dated 19 November 1960, by which State Board of Literature and Culture was established for initial tenure of 5 years. The Government Resolution provided for functions of the State Board and various other related matters. One of the functions of the State Board was to initiate assist and undertake scheme for preparation and publication in Marathi language of different literature such as bibliographies, encyclopedia, dictionaries etc. Towards performance of its function for compiling encyclopedia, the State Board decided to compile a Marathi Vishwakosha. The State Government issued Government Resolution dated 6 June 1963 thereby authorizing the Secretary of the State Board to secure as Visiting Editors services of upto 6 senior professors, research scholars, etc. attached to various universities/colleges for expert writing and other work in the Vishwakosha Unit during vacation times or otherwise as may be available. The Government Resolution provided for payment of honorarium of Rs.25/- for each full day of actual work. It appears that the State Government later decided to reorganize the State Board and to bifurcate the same. Accordingly, Government Resolution dated 28 November 1980 was issued thereby establishing Maharashtra Rajya Marathi Vishwakosha Nirmiti Mandal, (Vishwakosha Mandal) with effect from 1 December 1980, with its headquarters at Wai, District Satara. The Vishwakosha Mandal was initially established for a period of three years. After separation of Vishwakosha Mandal from the ambit of State Board, the reorganized Maharashtra State Board for Literature and Culture was reconstituted by the same Government Resolution dated 28 November 1980.

3. For carrying out the activities of compilation of Marathi Vishwakosha, the Vishwakosha Mandal drew services of various personnel by engaging them as Visiting Editors from time to time. Such engagements were made on honorarium basis for the tenures specified in each of the engagement letters. In the aforesaid manner, the Petitioners came to be engaged as Visiting Editors in the Vishwakosha Mandal on various dates. According to Petitioners they continued to work uninterruptedly and performed duties as if they were regular employees of Vishwakosha Mandal.

4. After rendering services for a substantial period of time as Visiting Editors, Petitioners instituted Complaints of unfair labour practices under Items 6, 9 and 10 of Scheduled IV of MRTP & PULP Act before Industrial Court, Kolhapur, seeking permanency in services. The Complaints were opposed by the Respondents by filing Written Statements denying existence of employer-employee relationship and contended that the Vishwakosha Mandal is a purely body of honorary reputed and learned persons nominated by the State Government and that Petitioners were never employed as employees. The Respondents also questioned the status of Vishwakosha Man