Dismissed

The Zilla Addhikshak and Anr. v. the General Secretary (Sarva Shramik Sangh, Sangli)

Bombay HC4 Nov 2023WP/8115/2005

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

Single Judge upheld the Industrial Court's order that State-run plant nursery is an industry. The refusal to regularize long-serving temporary workers was held to be an unfair labour practice intended to deny permanency benefits.

What did the court decide?

Writ Petition No.8115 of 2005 dismissed; judgment dated 11.01.2005 by Industrial Court confirmed. Writ Petition No.7090 of 2006 dismissed.

The Zilla Addhikshak and Anr. Vs the General… — Labour and Industrial Disputes | Bombay HC (2023)

¶1

Civil wp.8115.05 & wp.7090.06-A.doc

¶2

Ajay

¶3

IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY

¶4

CIVIL APPELLATE JURISDICTION

¶5

WRIT PETITION NO. 8115 OF 2005
WITH
CIVIL APPLICATION NO. 66 OF 2022
IN
WRIT PETITION NO. 8118 OF 2005

¶6

Zilla Adhikshak Krushi Khate Sanlgi & Anr...Petitioners
Versus
The General Secretary
(Sarva Shramik Sangh, Sangli) & Ors...Respondents

¶7

WITH WRIT PETITION NO. 7090 OF 2006

¶8

Adhikshan Krushikhate, Maharashtra Rajya &
Ors...Petitioners

¶9

Versus

¶10

Vilas Hariba Kharade & Ors...Respondents

¶11

Mr. S.H. Kankal, AGP for Petitioners.

¶12

Mr. Saurabh Mandlik i/by M.S. Topkar, Advocate for Respondent No.1 in Writ Petition No.8515 of 2005.

¶13

Mr. Manoj Patil, Advocate for Respondent Nos.2 to 11 in Writ Petition No.8115 of 2005.

¶14

CORAM:MILIND N. JADHAV, J.
DATE:NOVEMBER 04, 2023

¶15

JUDGMENT:

¶16

1. Writ Petition No.8115 of 2005 is filed by Zilla Addhikshik,

¶17

Krishi Khate, Sangli i.e. on behalf of the State Government of
Maharashtra under the provisions of Article 227 of the Constitution of
India to challenge the judgment and order dated 11.01.2005 passed by

¶18

the learned Industrial Court, Kolhapur in Complaint (ULP) No.172 of

¶19

Corrected / Modified Judgment as per Order dated 07.03.2024 1 of 20

¶20

Civil wp.8115.05 & wp.7090.06-A.doc

¶21

1988. By the said judgment, the learned Industrial Court allowed the
Complaint filed by the Respondents (original complainant) and
directed the Petitioners to grant permanency benefits to the employees
mentioned in Annexure-A to the Complaint except two persons w.e.f.
01.07.1988.

¶22

2. Briefly stated, Complaint Exhibit ‘U-1’ and amended Complaint Exhibit ‘U-21’ was filed by the registered Trade Union on behalf of the employees whose names were stated in Annexure-A to the Complaint who were members of the Respondent – Union. The employees worked under the control of Petitioner Nos.1 and 2 and were engaged in process of preparing fruit plants, tree plants, vegetable plants, plantation activity of various varieties of plants viz. coconut, lemon, mango etc. taking care of mother trees, maintaining the plants, watering them etc. Petitioners used to sell these plants and earn profit on the same. The members of the Union were engaged to work on 30 acres piece of land situated at village Kupwad, Taluka – Miraj, District – Sangli for the aforesaid activity. Apart from the members of the Respondent – Union whose names were appended in Annexure-A to the original Complaint, Petitioners also engaged permanent employees for the same work / activity who were duly paid all benefits of permanency. However, members of the Respondent – Union whose names are appended in Annexure-A to the original Complaint were continued to be engaged by the Petitioners as

¶23

Corrected / Modified Judgment as per Order dated 07.03.2024 2 of 20

¶24

Civil wp.8115.05 & wp.7090.06-A.doc

¶25

temporary employees for years together, year after year, without giving
them the benefit of permanency namely pay-scale, dearness allowance,
leave facility, allowances etc. Respondent – Union therefore filed the
original Complaint alleging unfair labour practice within the meaning
of Item Nos. 5, 6, 9 and 10 of Schedule IV of the Maharashtra
Recognition of Trade Unions and Prevention of Unfair Labour Practices
Act, 1971 (for short “MRTU and PULP Act”).

¶26

2.1. Petitioners in their written statement before the learned Industrial Court filed below Exhibit ‘C-20’ took up the defence that the Petitioners were not an ‘industry’ and as such provisions of the Industrial Disputes Act, 1947 (for short “ ID Act ”) would not apply to the original Complaint filed by the Respondent – Union.

¶27

2.2. It was contended that members of Respondent – Union whose cause was espoused in the Complaint were appointed on daily wages as no permanent work was available to be given to them. It was contended that work available with Petitioners relating to plantation was seasonal work and therefore it was not necessary for the Petitioners to engage employees on permanent basis. It was denied by Petitioners that the work undertaken by the temporary employees was equivalent to the work done by its permanent employees. It was contended that plantation work was skilled work undertaken by its permanent employees and only for the purpose of additional

¶28

Corrected / Modified Judgment as per Order dated 07.03.2024 3 of 20

¶29

Civil wp.8115.05 & wp.7090.06-A.doc

¶30

miscellaneous maintenance work i.e. watering of plants, digging of
land, cutting of plants etc. which was of unskilled nature the
temporary employees were appointed to work. It was contended that
Petitioners’ establishment at Kupwad was a nursery. That it was
engaged in making graft of various fruit plants which were preserved
and such nature of work was not perennial. It was contended that
merely because the temporary employees were engaged by the
Petitioners for a long time year after year on temporary basis they
cannot seek entitlement to permanency in services. It was contended
by Petitioners that the activity of Petitioners at Kupwad nursery was
not to earn profit from the sale of plants, rather its intention was to sell
plants at low costs and spread the scheme to agriculturists.

¶31

2.3. It is seen that original Complaint (ULP) No.172 of 1988 came to be allowed by judgment and order dated 29.11.1994. That judgment was challenged by the Petitioners in this Court in Writ Petition No.2687 of 1995. By order dated 23.03.2004, this Court set aside the judgment and remanded the matter back to the learned Industrial Court afresh for adjudication. The learned Industrial Court thereafter framed issues, recorded the evidence and passed the judgment and order dated 11.01.2005 which is impugned by the Petitioners in the present Writ Petition No.8115 of 2005.

¶32

3. Mr. Kankal, learned AGP appearing on behalf of the

¶33

Corrected / Modified Judgment as per Order dated 07.03.2024 4 of 20

¶34

Civil wp.8115.05 & wp.7090.06-A.doc

¶35

Petitioners has taken me through the impugned judgment and order
and would contend that none of the members of the Respondent –
Union have completed 240 days for service in the employment of the
Petitioner at Kupwad nursery. He would submit that in the written
statement filed before the learned Industrial Court a specific averment
was made to the effect that there were no sanctioned posts available
for confirming appointment of these members of the Respondent –
Union as permanent employees, despite which the learned Industrial
Court directed the Petitioners to employ them as permanent
employees. He would submit that the Court has no jurisdiction and
power to direct creation of permanent posts in this manner and it is
the sole function of the Executive depending upon various other
factors. He would submit that the members of the Respondent – Union
whose names are appearing in Annexure-A to the original Complaint
were admittedly employed as temporary daily wages as seasonal
workers and therefore, they cannot seek permanency merely because
they have been continued in service for a long time. He would submit
that these workers were neither recruited in accordance with
recruitment rules nor sponsored by the employment exchange of the
State Government and therefore their appointments cannot be
regularized as permanent employees.

¶36

4. Next he would submit that there is no evidence placed on

¶37

record that these workers had completed 240 days of service in each

¶38

Corrected / Modified Judgment as per Order dated 07.03.2024 5 of 20

¶39

Civil wp.8115.05 & wp.7090.06-A.doc

¶40

calendar year and continuously for a period of 5 years to be entitled to
any benefit under the Government Resolutions and the Government
Policy for appointing them as permanent employees.

¶41

5. PER CONTRA , Mr. Patil, learned Advocate appearing for the Respondent – Union would submit that the impugned judgment squarely answers the issues raised by the Petitioners while returning cogent and reasoned findings on issue Nos. (iii) and (iv). He has drawn my attention to the issues framed below Exhibit ‘U-3’ by the learned Industrial Court. Out of those issues, issue Nos. (iii) and (iv) are relevant and are reproduced below for reference:-

¶42

“iii) Whether this employment was with a view to deprive them of the status of permanency, thereby attracting item 6 of Schedule IV of the M.R.T.U. & P.U.L.P. Act, 1971?

¶43

iv) Whether Respondents have committed any unfair labour practice under items 5, 6 and 10 of Schedule IV of the M.R.T.U. and P.U.L.P. Act, 1971?”

¶44

6. He would submit that before the learned Industrial Court the Respondent – Union led oral evidence of two of the employees whose names are appearing in Annexure-A to the original Complaint namely Smt. Nilamma Anjanappa Shingade, below Exhibit ‘U-23’ and Sou. Latabai Appasaheb Bodhgire, below Exhibit ‘U-22’. These two witnesses in their cross-examination have described the nature of work undertaken by the workers at Kupwad nursery Taluka – Miraj in the land of 30 acres. He would submit that in rebuttal the Petitioners

¶45

Corrected / Modified Judgment as per Order dated 07.03.2024 6 of 20

¶46

Civil wp.8115.05 & wp.7090.06-A.doc

¶47

have not examined any witness before the learned Industrial Court.
He would submit that all workers who were engaged on temporary
basis as seasonal workers have all completed 240 days in one calendar
year and that too continuously for years together. He would submit
that the evidence given by the witnesses on behalf of the Respondent –
Union has gone uncontroverted and unchallenged and has been
accepted by the learned Industrial Court while delivering its verdict
dated 11.01.2005. He has drawn my attention to paragraph No.12 of
the impugned judgment and contended that the evidence given by the
witnesses on behalf of the Respondent – Union has gone unchallenged
and has been accepted by the learned Industrial Court and affirmative
findings have been returned that the establishment of the Petitioner is
an ‘industry’ within the meaning of definition of ‘industry’ in clause (s)
of Section 2 of the ID Act.

¶48

7. He has next drawn my attention to the findings returned by the learned Industrial Court in paragraph No.13 of the impugned judgment wherein a chart produced below Exhibit ‘C-30’ on behalf of the Respondent – Union was accepted by the Court and it was held that the names of the employees stated therein had completed 240 days work in one calendar year and some of them have been engaged for years together.

¶49

8. Mr. Patil, in support of his submissions has referred to and

¶50

Corrected / Modified Judgment as per Order dated 07.03.2024 7 of 20

¶51

Civil wp.8115.05 & wp.7090.06-A.doc

¶52

relied upon the decision, in the case of Chief Conservator of Forests
and Anr. Vs. Jagannath Maruti Kondhare and Ors.1in support of the
employees’ case seeking permanent status. In that case similarly
placed employees were appointed as badli and casual workers to work
on the Pachgaon Parvati Scheme which was a social forestry work
undertaken in Ahmednagar district for preservation of forest and
environment. In that case, the employees had admittedly being in the
employment of the State for 5 to 6 years in that capacity and in each
year had worked for a period ranging from 100 to 330 days. Those
workers approached the Industrial Court and pleaded that considering
their continuous engagement in service over a few years, there should
not be any doubt that had worked for long despite which they were
continued as casual labourers. It was contended by the workers that
they were continued in that capacity with the sole object of depriving
them of the status and privileges of permanent employees. This stand
of the employees was accepted and upheld by the Supreme Court
while returning its findings in paragraph Nos.22 to 26 of the said
judgment, which are directly relevant to the facts and circumstances of
the case before me. For reference and convenience, paragraph Nos.22
to 26 are reproduced herein below and read thus:-

¶53

“22. We have given our due thought to the aforesaid rival contentions and, according to us, the object of the State Act, inter alia, being prevention of certain unfair labour practices, the same would be thwarted or get frustrated if such a burden is

¶54

1 (1996) 2 SCC 293

¶55

Corrected / Modified Judgment as per Order dated 07.03.2024 8 of 20

¶56

Civil wp.8115.05 & wp.7090.06-A.doc

¶57

placed on a workman which he cannot reasonably discharge. In
our opinion, it would be permissible on facts of a particular case
to draw the inference mentioned in the second part of the item,
if badlis, casuals or temporaries are continued as such for years.
We further state that the present was such a case inasmuch as
from the materials on record we are satisfied that the 25
workmen who went to Industrial Court of Pune (and 15 to
Industrial Court, Ahmednagar) had been kept as casuals for
long years with the primary object of depriving them the status
of permanent employees inasmuch as giving of this status
would have required the employer to pay the workmen at a rate
higher than the one fixed under the Minimum Wages Act. We
can think of no other possible object as, it may be remembered
that the Pachgaon Parwati Scheme was intended to cater to the
recreational and educational aspirations also of the populace,
which are not ephemeral objects, but par excellence permanent.
We would say the same about environment-pollution-care work
of Ahmedanager, whose need is on increase because of increase
in pollution. Permanency is thus writ large on the face of both
the types of work. If even in such projects, persons are kept in
jobs on casual basis for years the object manifests itself; no
scrutiny is required. We, therefore, answer the second question
also against the appellants.

¶58

23. The final point which needs our determination is regarding
the reliefs granted by the Industrial Court, which is to make the
workmen, in both the matters, permanent with all benefits of a
permanent worker, which would include payment of wages etc.
at the rate meant for a permanent worker.

¶59

24. On the relief part, it is Shri Bhandare who principally
addressed us. His contention in this regard is that the relief of
making the workmen permanent, that is, to regularise them was
not justified inasmuch as some of them had been employed
under the Maharashtra Employment Guarantee Act, 1977. In
any case the drain on State exchequer which would follow if all
workers like the respondents are to be paid as permanent
employees would be so enormous that the State would find it
difficult to engage in other welfare activities.

¶60

25. To bring home his submission regarding the unjust nature of
the relief elating to regularisation, Shri Bhandare sought to rely
on the decision of this Court in Delhi Development Horticulture
Employees' Union V. Delhi Administration. We do not think that
the ratio of this decision is applicable to the facts of the present
case inasmuch as the employment of persons on daily wage
basis under Jawahar Rozgar Yojna by the Development
Department of Delhi Administration, whose claim for
regularisation was dealt in the aforesaid case was entirely
different from that of the scheme in which the respondents-
workmen were employed. Jawahar Rozgar Yojna was evolved to
provide income for those who are below the poverty line and
particularly during the periods when they are without any
source of livelihood and, therefore, without any income

¶61

Corrected / Modified Judgment as per Order dated 07.03.2024 9 of 20

¶62

Civil wp.8115.05 & wp.7090.06-A.doc

¶63

whatsoever. It is because of this that the Bench observed that
the object of the scheme was not to provide right to work as
such even to the rural poor, much less to the unemployed in
general. As against this, the workmen who were employed
under the schemes at hand had been so done to advance objects
having permanent basis as adverted to by us.

¶64

26. Therefore, what was stated in the aforesaid case cannot be
called in aid at all by the appellants. According to us, the case is
more akin to that of Haryana v. Piara Singhin which this Court
favoured the State Scheme for regularisation of casual labourers
who continued for a fairly long spell - say two or three years,
(paragraph 51). As in the cases at hand the workmen concerned
had, by the time they approached the Industrial Courts worked
for more or less 5 years continuously, no case for interference
with this part of the relief has been made out.”

¶65

8.1. Further, it is seen that the argument relating to financial burden pleaded by the Forest Department was also considered by the Supreme Court as one of despair or in terrorem. It was held by the Supreme Court that relief of permanency to the State employees cannot be denied only because if they are granted relief they would be required to be paid wages meant for permanent workers. It was held by the Supreme Court that the right of the employees flows automatically from the relief of regularization to which no objection could be reasonably taken. Paragraph Nos.28 and 29 of the said judgment are also therefore relevant and are reproduced below and read thus:-

¶66

“28. In so far as the financial strain on the State exchequer is
concerned, which submission is sought to be buttressed by Shri
Dholakia by stating that in the Forests Department itself the
casual employees are about 1.4 lacs and if all of them were to
be regularised and paid at the rate applicable to permanent
workmen, the financial involvement would be in the
neighbourhood Rs 300 crores - a very high figure indeed. We
have not felt inclined to bear in mind this contention of Shri

¶67

Corrected / Modified Judgment as per Order dated 07.03.2024 10 of 20

¶68

Civil wp.8115.05 & wp.7090.06-A.doc

¶69

Dholakia as the same has been brought out almost from the
hat. The argument relating to financial burden is one of despair
or in terrorem. We have neither been impressed by the first not
frightened by the second inasmuch as we do not intend that the
view to be taken by us in these appeals should apply, proprio
vigore, to all casual labourers of the Forests Department or any
other Department of the Government.

¶70

29. We wish to say further that if Shri Bhandare's submission is
taken to its logical end, the justification for paying even
minimum wages could wither away, leaving any employer, not
to speak of model employer like the State, to exploit
unemployed persons. To be fair to Shri Bhandare it may,
however, be stated that the learned Counsel did not extend his
submission this far, but we find it difficult to limit the
submission of Shri Bhandare to payment of, say fair wages, as
distinguished from minimum wages. We have said so, because
if a pay scale has been provided for permanent workmen that
has been done by the State Government keeping in view its
legal obligations and must be one which had been
recommended by the State Pay Commission and accepted by
the Government. We cannot deny this relief of permanency to
the respondents-workmen only because in that case they would
be required to be paid wages meant for permanent workers.
This right flows automatically from the relief of regularisation
to which no objection can reasonably be taken, as already
pointed out. We would, however, observe that the relief make
available to the respondents is not one which would be
available ipso facto to all the casual employees either of the
Forests Department or any other Department of the State.
Claim of casual employees for permanency or for higher pay
shall have to be decided on the merits of their own cases.”

¶71

8.2. Mr. Patil, has thereafter referred to and relied upon the

¶72

following decisions of this Court in support of his submissions:-

¶73

(i) Century Rayon (A Division of Century Textiles and Industries, Ltd. Vs. Anand Dadau Ubale and Ors.2;

¶74

(ii) Maharashtra State Electricity Board Vs. Sunil More and Ors.3;

¶75

(iii) Burroughs Welcome (I) Ltd., Mumbai Vs. D.H. Ghosle and Ors.4;

¶76

(iv) Parke-Davis (India) Ltd. Vs. Mahadev Bhiku Jadhav and

¶77

2 2005 (3) L.L.N. 470

¶78

3 2002 (3) L.L.N. 964

¶79

4 2001 (2) Mh.L.J. 54

¶80

Corrected / Modified Judgment as per Order dated 07.03.2024 11 of 20

¶81

Civil wp.8115.05 & wp.7090.06-A.doc

¶82

Ors.5;

¶83

(v) Navnath Maruti Chavan Vs. Conservator of Forest, Pune and Anr.6;

¶84

(vi) Shahar Palika Kamgar Union Vs. Chief Officer, Ahmednagar Municipal Council7; and

¶85

(vii) Laxman Mahadev Teli Vs. Sri Pancham Khemraj Mahavidyalaya8.

¶86

8.3. In support of employees’ case, this Court in the case of Century Rayon (2^nd supra) in paragraph No.10 of the said judgment has referred to the judgment of the Supreme Court in the case of the Chief Conservator of Forests (1^st supra) laying down the binding principles in paragraph No.22 which have been referred to herein above.

¶87

9. In that view of the matter, he would submit that the impugned judgment and order being a well reasoned judgment does not call for any interference and should be upheld.

¶88

10. I have heard Mr. Kankal, learned AGP appearing for the Petitioners - State and Mr. Patil, learned Advocate appearing for the Respondent – Union and with their able assistance perused the record and pleadings of the case. Submissions made by the learned Advocates have received due consideration of this Court.

¶89

11. At the outset, it is seen that originally there were 17

¶90

5 2008 (3) Mh.L.J. 823

¶91

6 2006 (1) Mh.L.J. 710

¶92

7 2006 SCC Online Bom 1570

¶93

8 WP No.2749/1987 decided on 25.10.1988

¶94

Corrected / Modified Judgment as per Order dated 07.03.2024 12 of 20

¶95

Civil wp.8115.05 & wp.7090.06-A.doc

¶96

members of the Respondent – Union whose names have appeared in
Annexure-A filed alongwith the original Complaint. Out of those 17
employees after the amendment only 12 employees remained as part
of the original Complaint. Thereafter, it is seen that 2 out of 12
employees namely Smt. Anubai Anjappa Masraj and Smt. Anjamma
Somanna Reddi are no longer in employment of the Petitioners and
therefore they have not been given the benefit of permanency by the
impugned judgment and order. It is seen that the benefit of
permanency has been extended to the remaining 10 employees only. It
is seen that these 10 employees were working with the Petitioners as
labourers during the span of two years to six years prior to 1987 –
1988. The witnesses of the Respondent – Union filed details of the
number of days of work done by these employees and they having
worked with the Petitioners below Exhibit ‘C-30’ which shows that they
were indeed working with the Petitioners from the year 1982 to 2004.
It is seen that what has weighed with the Industrial Court is the stand
adopted by the Petitioners for giving them continuous work. The
learned Industrial Court has in paragraph Nos.16 to 17 of the
impugned judgment and order analyzed the specific reason as to why
these employees were entitled to status of permanency. For reference
and convenience, paragraph Nos.16 and 17 of the impugned judgment
and order are reproduced below and read thus:-

¶97

“16. The Union representative for complainant invited my

¶98

Corrected / Modified Judgment as per Order dated 07.03.2024 13 of 20

¶99

Civil wp.8115.05 & wp.7090.06-A.doc

¶100

attention towards the judgment of this court in Complaint
(ULP) No.95 to 116 of 1986, certified copy of which is produced
on record with list Ex.U-27 to show that this Court has granted
benefits of permanency to the daily rated employees working
with the respondent and the said judgment of this court has
been confirmed by the Hon’ble Bombay High Court in Writ
Petition No.4284 of 1989 and by the Hon’ble Supreme Court of
India. He has further submitted that these employees are
working with the Respondents for years together, they must get
benefits of permanency. From the evidence of witnesses of the
complainant in this matter and pleading in the complaint U-1
and U-27 and the chart of the respondents at Exh.C-30, it is
clear to me that the Respondents have employed the workmen
mentioned in Annexure A to the complaint, who are members
of the complainant Union as temporary workmen for years
together. In view of the admission given by the respondent in
written statement in paragraph No.6 of written statement filed
in Complaint (ULP) No.25 of 2000 that continuous work was
denied to them and said work was done by permanency
employees working at other place. Thus, this act on the part of
the respondent shows that the respondents with a view to
deprive them their continuous work and deprived them the
benefits of permanency, continued them for years together as
temporary employees and the intention behind is to deprive
them the benefits of permanency. Thus, the complainant in this
matter, has proved that this action on the part of the
respondents amounts to unfair labour practice within the
meaning of item 6 of Sch.IV of the MRTU and PULP Act. Hence,
I answer Issue No.2 and 3 in the affirmative.

¶101

17. I have already pointed out that other permanent employees
are working with the respondents in Class IV category and
according to the complainant, they are getting the benefits of
permanency and the employees mentioned in the complaint are
doing same type of work but they were deprived the benefits of
permanency. This action on the part of the respondents shows
the favouritism to one set of workers regardless of merits which
attracts item 5 of Sch.IV of the MRTU and PULP Act. In my
opinion, when these employees are working with the
respondents for years together, for that purpose Chart Ex.C-30
is very important. It may be true that in some years, they have
not completed 240 days of service with the respondent, but still
the fact remains is that the employees mentioned in Annexure A
to the Complaint are working with the respondents for years
together but they are not getting the benefits of permanency
and as per provisions of Model Standing Orders Act they are
entitled for the benefits of permanency after completing of 240
days service with the respondents. However, as these employees
through the Union have proved in this matter that the
respondents have engaged in unfair labour practice within the
meaning of ltem 6 of Sch. IV of the MRTU and PULP Act on this
background, as per service rules, I hold that these employees
are entitled for the benefits of permanency like pay scale,

¶102

Corrected / Modified Judgment as per Order dated 07.03.2024 14 of 20

¶103

Civil wp.8115.05 & wp.7090.06-A.doc

¶104

dearness allowance, house rent allowance increments, leave
facility like other permanent employees, thereby the
respondents have violated the service rules, agreement which
attracts item 9 of Sch. IV of the MRTU and PULP Act and by
using act of force, the respondents have continued these
employees on daily wage basis for years together, thereby the
respondents have engaged in unfair labour practice within the
meaning of item 10 of Sch.IV of the MRTU and PULP Act.”

¶105

12. From the above, it is seen that the judgment of this Court passed in Writ Petition No.4284 of 1989 in an identical case with respect to similarly placed employees has been upheld by the Supreme Court. By that judgment, this Court has granted benefits of permanency to daily rated employees working with the Petitioners. The learned Industrial Court has returned a categorical finding that the act on the part of the Petitioners to deliberately not give continuous work to these employees and instead get the same done through the permanent employees working at other places was with a clear view to deprive these employees the benefits of permanency. The learned Industrial Court has categorically noted that services of these employees was continued by the Petitioners for years together as temporary employees only and this was with the sole intention to deprive them the benefits of permanency. In that view of the matter, the learned Industrial Court has held that the action on the part of the Petitioners amounted to unfair labour practice within the meaning of Item No. 6 of Schedule IV of the MRTU and PULP Act.

¶106

13. It would also be worthwhile in this context, to refer to

¶107

Corrected / Modified Judgment as per Order dated 07.03.2024 15 of 20

¶108

Civil wp.8115.05 & wp.7090.06-A.doc

¶109

paragraph No.12 of the impugned judgment and order wherein the
learned Industrial Court has taken into cognizance the nature of the
work done by these employees on the basis of the pleadings and the
evidence on record. In this context, paragraph No.12 is relevant and
reproduced below and reads thus:-

¶110

“12. The complainant in his complaint (Ex.U-1) and (U-21)
pleaded that the Respondents with the help of employees are
taking the work of preparation of plants of various fruit trees
and used to sell it and to maintain these plants these employees
are rendering their services to give water to these plants, the
respondents are taking water from two wells situated in the
premises of the respondents where these employees are
working, which is of 30 acres of lands. It is also contention of
the complainant that the respondents have taken three
borewells in the said premises and to lift the water from the
wells as well as borewells, the electric motors are installed and
by lifting the water with the help of electric motors, water is
provided to the plants. This is the pleading of the complainant
in the complaint, which is supported by evidence of the
witnesses of the complainant at Exh. U-22 and U-23. It is
pertinent to note that the respondents in written statement at
Exh. C-23 as well as additional written statement Exh.C-20 has
not denied the fact that they are lifting the water from the
wells as well as borewells with the help of electric motors to
supply the water to plants and trees for their growing purpose.
The respondents have also not taken cross examination of the
two witnesses of the complaint on this aspect. Therefore, I have
no hesitation to hold that evidence of the complaint on this
aspect has gone unchallenged. Therefore from the pleading of
the complaint as well as affidavit evidence of the complainant,
it is clear to me that the respondents, for the purpose of
preparation of these fruit trees, plants engaged in a systematic
activities carried on with the help of employees for the purpose
of production, supply or distribution of fruit trees, plants with a
view to satisfy human wants. Thus, the complainant, in this
matter, has proved the triple test laid down by the Hon’ble
Supreme Court of India to show that the Respondent is an
‘industry’ within the meaning of Sec.2(s) of the I.D. Act. On the
background of evidence of the complainant it is clear to me
that with the help of electric motors, water is lifted and the
said water is supplied for the growth of the plantation. Thus, it
is clear that these plants are not developed naturally, the work
which is undertaken by the Respondents is not natural but
there are human efforts behind it and therefore, relying on the
ratio laid down by the Hon’ble Supreme Court of India, in

¶111

16 of 20

¶112

Civil wp.8115.05 & wp.7090.06-A.doc

¶113

aforesaid case laws, I have no hesitation to hold that the
provisions of the Factories Act are applicable to the work of the
Respondent, simultaneously, the provisions of Industrial
Employment (Standing Orders) Act, 1946 are also applicable to
the services of the employees mentioned in the annexure to the
complaint. The stand taken by the respondents that the work
undertaken by the respondent is on ‘no profit no loss’ basis has
no criteria to deny the benefits of the I.D Act to the employees
involved in the complaint. Therefore, on the background of
evidence led by the complainant, I have no hesitation to hold
that the complainant has proved that the respondent
establishment is an ‘industry’ within the meaning of definition
in clause (s) of section 2 of I.D. Act. Hence, I answer issue No.1
in the affirmative.”

¶114

13.1. From the above, it is seen that the learned Industrial Court has categorically analyzed the nature of work performed by these employees and has concluded that the provisions of the Factories Act was applicable to these employees, simultaneously the provisions of Industrial Employment (Standing Orders) Act, 1946 was also applicable to these employees and the stand adopted by the Petitioners that their activity is on a ‘no profit no loss’ basis therefore cannot be the criteria to deny benefits of permanency under the ID Act to these employees who filed the complaint. It has been also been held by the learned Industrial Court that the complainant has proved that the Petitioner establishment is an ‘industry’ within the meaning of definition of ‘industry’ under Section 2(s) of the ID Act.

¶115

14. After considering the judgment passed by the learned Industrial Court, there can be no doubt in mind that these 10 employees have worked with the Petitioners for years together since the year 1982 onwards. In the case of some of these employees, in

¶116

Corrected / Modified Judgment as per Order dated 07.03.2024 17 of 20

¶117

Civil wp.8115.05 & wp.7090.06-A.doc

¶118

some years they have not completed 240 days, however there is no
denial of the fact that Item No.6 of Schedule IV does not contemplate
or reflect upon continuous service of 240 days. All that it contemplates
is that services of the employees as badli, casuals or temporary for
years together with a particular object mentioned therein.

¶119

15. As is alluded to herein above, the intention of the Petitioners

¶120

to engage these employees for years together was with the sole
intention to deprive them the benefit of permanency. The further
arguments of the Petitioners that there are no sanctioned posts of
labourers is devoid of merits and deserves to be rejected as stated in
view of various rulings of this Court.

¶121

16. The Supreme Court in the case of Workmen of Bhurkunda Colliery of Central Coalfields Ltd. Vs. Management of Bhurkunda Collinery of Central Coalfield Ltd.9 has held that when such temporary or ad-hoc appointments are continued for a long period of time, the Court has to presume that there is a regular need for service on regular posts.

¶122

17. In view of the above observations and findings and the decisions which have been discussed herein above, no interference is called for in the judgment and order passed by the learned Industrial Court and the same is upheld. Resultantly, Writ Petition No.8115 of

¶123

9 2006 I CLR 635

¶124

Corrected / Modified Judgment as per Order dated 07.03.2024 18 of 20

¶125

Civil wp.8115.05 & wp.7090.06-A.doc

¶126

2005 is dismissed and the judgment dated 11.01.2005 passed by the
learned Industrial Court is confirmed.

¶127

18. In the present case, from the material on record it is clearly seen that the employees / workers had been kept as casuals / temporary workers for long years with the primary object of depriving them the status of permanent employees in as much as giving of this status would have required the employer i.e. the Petitioners to pay the workers at a rate higher than fixed in the Minimum Wages Act. It is seen that, the purpose for which the workers were employed is infact permanent in nature since permanent employees were also employed by the Petitioners to work side by side with the temporary workers. Evidence on record proves that the nature of work undertaken by these temporary workers for years together was the same work which was performed by the permanent employees of the Petitioners. In such facts and circumstances permanency is thus writ large on the face of the nature of the work performed. Needless to state that claim of casual / temporary workers seeking permanency have to be decided on merits of each case.

¶128

19. In so far as the Writ Petition No.7090 of 2006 it challenges the impugned judgment dated 23.03.2006 passed by the learned Industrial Court in Complaint (ULP) No.42 of 2000. In this case, the original complainants worked as daily wagers over years on

¶129

Corrected / Modified Judgment as per Order dated 07.03.2024 19 of 20

¶130

Civil wp.8115.05 & wp.7090.06-A.doc

¶131

agricultural land belonging to the Government of Maharashtra
admeasuring 56 acres for plantation work of various types of fruits and
vegetables and preparation of mother plants of such fruits and seeds of
various vegetables and other agricultural products.

¶132

19.1. In this Writ Petition there were 11 workers who had filed the original complaint being Complaint (ULP) No.306 of 2000. Facts are identical in so far as both the above Writ Petitions are concerned.

¶133

20. It this case the original complainants i.e. employees were working with the Respondent i.e. on the Government farm for 7 to 15 years. In this case also evidence was led on behalf of the employees and admitted by the Industrial Court. Similar and identical objections were raised by the Petitioner Government in this Writ Petition also. However, considering the decision and reasons given in the above Petition, the same reasons are clearly applicable in the facts and circumstances of the present Writ Petition and in that view of the matter, no interference is called for with the impugned judgment dated 23.03.2006 passed by the learned Industrial Court, Sangli and the same is upheld and confirmed.

¶134

21. Writ Petition No.7090 of 2006 is dismissed.

¶135

22. All other interlocutory Applications, if any, are accordingly

¶136