Prolonged continuous service of employees necessitates regularization irrespective of absence of sanctioned posts, reinforcing the obligation of fair employment practices by the state.

JUDGMENT :

SIDDHESHWAR S. THOMBRE, J.

1. Heard. Rule. Rule made returnable forthwith. Heard the petitions finally with the consent of all the parties at the stage of admission.

2. In all these petitions, the petitioners are assailing the judgments and award passed by the learned Member, Industrial Court, Jalna, whereby complaints filed by the employees came to be allowed thereby directing the Petitioner/State to make the respondents/employees permanent on the post of skilled labours from the date of presentation of the complaints. Following table contains the details impugned orders :

3. It was the case of the Complainants that they were appointed and worked as skilled labour as daily wages employees since the dates mentioned in the following table and they have completed more than 240 days of continuous service in the preceding calender year. They were appointed on sanctioned and vacant posts but the employer/State did not grant them permanency, therefore, they filed complaints before learned Industrial Court, Jalna, where evidence was tendered by all the parties and respondents/employees proved that they have completed 240 days of continuous service in preceding calender year. The dates of appointments of all employees are as follows :

4. In Writ Petition 3550 of 2022 the respondent/employee has proved through the evidence of Mr. Navnath s/o Rambhau Kokate (RW-1), the Sub Divisional Agriculture Officer (Exhibit-20) that the nature of work of complainant was to fill the plastic bags with mud and plants sapling into it. There was over-all control and supervision of the petitioner/State over the respondent employee. His evidence was not disputed.

5. The learned Industrial Court recorded the findings to that effect in paragraph Nos.11 and 15, which are reproduced as under :

“11. Upon perusal of the evidence and materials on record it can be seen that the Complainant has been working with the respondents on daily wages since 1989 and the employment of the Complainant continues to be with the respondents even today. Furthermore, the working day statement of the Complainant from 1989 to 2002 filed on record by the respondents would also go to show that the complainant was employed as daily labour with the respondents and he has worked for more than 240 days from the inception of his joining till 2002. The case bills and payments made to the complainant by the respondents would apparently show that since 2002 and even till today, the wages are paid. The supply of materials like Saplings, mud, water, urea, transportation and other implements used in the said work and other ancillary materials by the respondent to the Complainant would show that the Employer has control over the employee. Thus, it is difficult to agree with the submissions of the learned advocate for the respondents that there is no employer-employee relationship between Complainant and the respondents and the same is not convincing and does not hod water. Moreover, there is nothing on record to show that the Maharashtra civil Services Rules are applicable to the workmen doing daily wages. On the contrary, the admission on the part of the respondents in their say of having issued notice under Section 9-A of the Industrial Disputes Act, 1947 to the complainant would show that MCSR are not applicable rather Labour jurisprudence is applicable. My attention is also drawn by the learned Advocate for the Complainant on the judgment passed in Complaint (ULP) Nol. 05 of 2008, wherein the complaint of identically situated daily wage workers was held by the Industrial Court to be maintainable, which impugned order when challenged before t