vil Appeal No 3719 3721 of l988
PG NO 474 From the Judgment and Order dated 91031987 of the Bombay High Court in WP Nos
620 622 and 621 of 1986
G Ramaswamy Additional Solicitor General and AM Khanwilkar for the Appellant
Dr RS Kulkarni Jitender Sharma DM Nargolkar and AS Bhasme for the Respondents
The Judgment of the Court was delivered by DUTT J
Special is granted
Heard learned Counsel for the parties
These appeals preferred by the appellant the Maharashtra State Cooperative Cotton Growers Marketing Federation Ltd are directed against the judgment of the Bombay High Court whereby the High Court allowed the writ petitions of the respondents and quashed the order of the Industrial Court Maharashtra Kolhapur Bench Kolhapur dismissing the complaints filed by the respondents
The Government of Maharashtra appointed the Maharashtra State Cooperative Marketing Federation hereinafter referred to as the Marketing Federation the Chief Agent in the Cotton Monopoly Scheme under the provision of section 42 of tile Maharashtra Raw Cotton Procurement Process of Marketing Act 1971
The activities of the Marketing Federation extended to various agricultural produce including foodgrains
In February 1984 the Government carved out the operation of the levy of cotton from the other activities of the Marketing Federation and assigned them to another society namely
the Maharashtra State Cooperative Cotton Growers Marketing Federation Ltd the appellant in all these appeals
By its order dated August 10 1984 the Government directed the Marketing Federation to take the following actions i In respect of the Staff working under the Cotton Monopoly Scheme at present the Services of the seasonal staff working if any should be terminated with immediate effect and in any case not later than 15th August 1984
ii So far as the regular staff is concerned it is proposed that the services of the staff working in the Cotton Department of the Federation at Bombay and in the Mofussil areas would be placed at the disposal of the new PG NO 475 Organisation on as is where is basis as on 1st July 1984
 In a subsequent letter dated September 8 1984 the Marketing Federation was directed to effect the transfer of the chief agency from the Marketing Federation to the appellant inter alia by transferring all the assets and liabilities under the scheme account and the cash and Bank balance at Bombay and Mofussil under the scheme account as well as under the non scheme account to the appellant etc
The respondents claimed that they were permanent employees of the Marketing Federation and in view of the directions contained in the said letter dated August 10 1984 of the Government the appellant should have appointed them on a permanent basis and not as seasonal employees
The case of the respondents was that they had been in the employment of the Marketing Federation since 1972 on monthly salaries with annual increments
Even though there was an Award in their favour by the Industrial Tribunal declaring them as permanent employees yet the Marketing Federation and the appellant failed and neglected to give them the permanent status
Accordingly they made complaints before the Industrial Court complaining of unfair labour practices on the part of the Marketing Federation as also on the part of the appellant as contained in Items Nos 6 and 9 of Schedule IV to the Maharashtra Recognition of Trade Unions and Prevention of Unfair Labour Practices Act 1971 items 6 and 9 are as follows Items 6
To employ employee as badlis casuals or temporaries and to continue them as such for years with the object of depriving them of the status and privileges of permanent employees
Item 9
Failure to implement award settlement or agreement
In this connection we may refer to section 5d of the said Act which provides that it shall be the duty of the Industrial Court to decide complaints relating to unfair labour practices except unfair labour practices falling in Item I of Schedule IV
The Industrial Court took the view that the complaints made by the respondents did not come under Item Nos 6 and 9 but they came under Item No I and as such it could not decide the complaints in view of section 5d
Further it was held by the Industrial Court that there was no unfair PG NO 476 labour practice on the part of the Marketing Fedration or the appellant and that in any event the complaints were barred by limitation as the same were filed beyond 90 days from the date of the knowledge of the respondents that they were appointed by the appellant as seasonal employees
Upon the said findings the Industrial Court dismissed the complaints of the respondents
Being aggrieved by the order of the Industrial Court the respondents filed writ petitions before the High Court and as stated already the High Court allowed the writ petitions and quashed the order of the Industrial Court
Hence these appeals
It has been already noticed that under the Award of the Industrial Tribunal the respondents were declared the permanent employees of the Marketing Federation
The appellant has prepared a seniority list for the year 1985 86 which shows that most of the respondents have been in the employment of the Marketing Federation since 1972
The said seniority list is Annexure D  to the writ petitions filed by the respondents in the High Court
The annual increment list also D prepared by the appellant shows that the respondents have been in the service of the appellant on monthly salaries and they were given annual increments on November 1 1985
In spite of the above facts the respondents have been shown in the seniority list and also in the annual increment list as temporary employees
In our opinion there cannot he any doubt that there has been unfair labour practice on the part of the Marketing Federation as also on the appellant by continuing them as temporary employees
We are unable to accept the contention of the appellant that the Award is not binding on the appellant
In view of the Award it must be held that the respondents were the permanent employees of the Marketing Federation and that after the constitution of the appellant and the transfer of the employees of the Marketing Federation to the appellant the appellant was bound to accept the respondents as permanent employees and not to treat them as seasonal employees or temporary employees
This act on the part of the appellant amounts to unfair labour practice
We do not find any justification for the finding of the Industrial Court that the complaints made by the respondents do not come within the purview of Items Nos 6 and 9 of Schedule IV of the Maharashtra Recognition of Trade Unions and Prevention of Unfair Labour Practices Act 1971
No reason has been given by the Industrial Court why the complaints come within Item No 1 of Schedule IV and
as such can be decided only by the Labour Court and not by the Industrial Tribunal
The complaints made by the respondents are clear and specific and there was no scope for PG NO 477 categorising them as complaints under Item No 1 of Schedule IV
With regard to the question of limitation the Industrial Tribunal seems to think that as the appointment letters bear some dates in October 1984 the period of limitation will be computed from the respective dates of the appointment letters
It has been assumed by the Industrial Tribunal that the respondents come to know that they were being appointed as seasonal employees on the respective dates of their appointment letters
There is however no material on record to show on what dates the appointment letters were served on the respondents
In other words there is nothing to show when the respondents received the appointment letters
In the circumstances the Industrial Court was not at all justified in holding that the complaints filed by the respondents were barred by limitation
Even assuming that the complaints were barred by limitation as held by the Industrial Court the Industrial Court should have given an opportunity to the respondents for explaining the delay
No such opportunity has been given to the respondents
Accordingly we are unable to subscribe to the view of the Industrial Court that the complaints filed by the respondents were barred by limitation
Before parting with these appeals we may dispose of a short contention of the appellant
The learned Counsel for the appellant has placed much reliance upon a letter of the Government dated November 9 1984 giving some directions to the appellant as contained in paragraphs 1 and 2 of the said letter
Paragraphs 1 and 2 are as follows 1
All staff recruited after 1st July 1972 specifically for the cotton scheme with prior approval of Government wherever necessary or where the Government representative was associated with the selectionappointment of the candidates should be immediately placed on deputation without payment of Deputation Allowance to the Cotton Growers  Marketing Federation Their salaries and allowances will be payable from the scheme as part of the commission payable to the Cotton Growers Federation till 1st January 1985
The Cotton Growers Federation Ltd will finally absorb the above categories of staff after scrutiny as on 1st January1985
Those out of the above staff who are not PG NO 478 acceptable to the new Federation for some reason or the other and so have to be retrenched will be retrenched by the Maharashtra State Cooperative Marketing Federation Ltd and the cost thereof would be debited to cotton scheme account On the basis of the directions in paragraph 2 extracted above it is submitted on behalf of the appellant that the appellant is at liberty not to absorb or accept the respondents in the appellant s concern
This contention in our opinion is without any substance whatsoever
There is a specific direction that the appellant shall finally absorb the staff of the Marketing Fedration after scrutiny as on January 1 1985
The appellant cannot refuse to absorb or accept a permanent employee of the Marketing Federation without any reason whatsoever
So far as the respondents are concerned we do not find any reason why the appellant should not accept them as its permanent employees
The High Court has rightly directed the appellant and the Marketing Federation to process the cases of the respondents on the basis that they have put in more than 240 days of service and grant them all the benefits under the circular letter dated January 18 1985
For the reasons aforesaid the judgment of the High Court is affirmed and the appeals are dismissed with one set of costs quantified at Rs5000
HSK Appeals dismissed


Summary:
The respondents had sought admission to post graduate courses in the five medical colleges affiliated to the Rajasthan University through a competitive examination which was common for all these five colleges
They were not able to secure admission in any discipline even though they had secured more marks as compared to the successful candidates who had been granted additional marks on the basis of Ordinance 278 Edii of the Ordinance of University of Rajasthan
Under this proviso the successful candidates were entitled to a uniform addition of 5 marks in the percentage of aggregate marks if they had passed the final MBBS examination from the same institution for which selection was being made
The respondents challenged this provision as violative of the equality principle enshrined in Article 14 of the Constitution
The High Court struck down as unconstitutional the impugned provision embodied in note dii of Ordinance 278 E Dismissing the appeal it was HELD 1 The aggregate marks for all subjects put together is 2750
5 of these makrs would work out to 1375 marks
In the result a candidate from the same college will have an advantage of 1375 marks over candidates from other PG NO 493 PG NO 494 colleges
In medical courses where there is intense competition and candidates run neck to neck so often with a difference of a mark or two a difference of 1375 marks by way of college wise institutional preference would virtually make a mockery of the merit criteria
498C D 2 This factor coupled with other factors leave no room for doubt that while on the face of it the impugned rule appears to extend or accord equal treatment of 5 weightage to the students of each of the five Medical College in actual operation it brings about oppressive and obnoxious inequality
Once the veil of apparent equality is pierced the ugly inequality stares one in the eyes which are opened to the offensive reality  502B C 3 Admission to post graduate courses st SMS College at Jaipur being considered as most advantageous a candidate from Jaipur College will get admission in PG Course at Jaipur in preference to the other more meritorious candidates merely because he passed the MBBS examination at Jaipur even though all of them secured their marks at the indentical competitive examination to all the Colleges
It needs no argument that Article 14 is seriously shattered
498D 4 What may appear  to be equal treatment accorded in obeisance to the equality doctrine embodied in Article 14 of the Constitution in its application in reality  may result in denial of equality and may accordingly be liable to be condemned for defying the equality doctrine
495B 5 Such being the position the constitutional validity of the impugned rule cannot be sustained
It has to be buried unceremoniously as unconstitutional being violate of article 14 of the Constitution of India
502C D Nidamarti Mahesh kumar vs State of Maharashtra AIR 80 SC 1362 1980 3 SCR 1302 referred to