1 W.P.No.96.90+1 IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY, BENCH AT AURANGABAD. WRIT PETITION NO. 96 OF 1990 WITH CIVIL APPLICATION NO. 3968 of 2005 1. Joint Director of Social Forestry,Social Forestry, Circle, New Osmanpura, Aurangabad. 2. Deputy Director of Social Forestry,Social Forestry, Division, Aurangabad. 3. Plantation Officer, Social Forestry,Range, Darga Road,Osmanpura Aurangabad. ... PETITIONERS V E R S U S Shri Vitthal Bhivsan Pophale, Major, at & post Hivra, Post Karmad, Ta.& Dist. Aurangabad. ... RESPONDENT ... Mr. V.B.Ghatge, A.G.P. for Petitioners. Mr. N.L.Jadhav,Advocate for respondent. ... WRIT PETITION NO. 1023 OF 1990 Vitthal S/o Bhivsan Pophale, Age Major, Occup.Service R/o Hiwara,Post Karmad, District Aurangabad. ... PETITIONER V E R S U S. 2 W.P.No.96.90+1 1.Joint Director of Social Forestry, Aurangabad. 2.Deputy Director of Social Forestry Department, Aurangabad. 3.Plantation Officer, Social Forestry Department Aurangabad. 4. The State... ... RESPONDENTS ... Mr. N.L.Jadhav,Advocate for petitioner. Mr. V.B.Ghatge, A.G.P. for respondents. ... CORAM : V.R.KINGAONKAR, J. DATE : 6TH MAY, 2010. ORAL JUDGMENT: 1. Both these petitions are being decided together in as much as parties to the petitions are same and the controversy arises out of claim that was made by the respondent allegedly employed as watchman. 2. The respondent No.1 in Writ Petition No. 96 of 1990 and the petitioner in Writ Petition No. 1023 of 1990, namely, Vitthal Bhisan Pophale was initially working as a daily wager in the Social Forestry Division at 3 W.P.No.96.90+1 Aurangabad. He alleged that he was appointed as watchman since August, 1980 and was posted at Plantation Centre, situated at village Shekta. He further alleged that after 1983 he was transferred to Plantation Centre at Aurangabad. He submitted that his services were illegally terminated by the employer. Consequently, he filed complaint alleging that he was subjected to unfair labour practices as enumerated under Item No. 6 of Schedule IV of the Maharashtra Recognition of Trade Unions and Prevention of Unfair Labour Practices Act, 1971( For Short “MRTU and PULP Act” ) He also claimed status of permanent employee because he had allegedly served more than 240 days and was entitled to be continued. The contention of the employee ( Vitthal ) was that he was terminated from services but was subsequently reinstated and, therefore, he was entitled to claim benefits of permanency. The learned Member of the Industrial Court held that the employee duly proved his case. It was noticed that employer did not remain present during the hearing of the complaint application (ULP No. 437 of 1984). Hence, the application was allowed and the employer was directed to make employee ( Vitthal ) permanent from August,1980, and to pay difference of 4 W.P.No.96.90+1 back wages. Feeling aggrieved by the Award, the employer filed Writ Petition No. 96 of 1990. In the meanwhile, the employee (Vitthal) sought implementation of the award regarding monetary benefits payable to him. His application Under section 50 of the MRTU and PULP Act was rejected by the Industrial Court, therefore, he has preferred Writ Petition No. 1023 of 1999. 3. Heard learned Assistant Government Pleader and learned counsel for the parties. 4. It is important to notice that the employee was not appointed on any post as such. He was not being paid monthly salary available under a pay-scale. He was working on daily wages and apparently was lateron appointed as watchman at the Plantation Centre. There is nothing on record to show that he was selected by a Selection Committee. First and foremost important question is whether the Social Forestry Department can be regarded as “industry” within the meaning of section 2(i) of the Industrial Disputes Act and Section 3(7) of the MRTU and PULP Act. A learned Single Judge of this Court in the case “Marathwada Sarwa Shramik Sanghatana 5 W.P.No.96.90+1 Vs. Assistant Director, Department of Social Forestry Parbhani”, 2002(3) Mh.L.J. 760, held that the department like Social Forestry is not an “industry”. It is obvious that, the complaint-application could not have been entertained by the Industrial Tribunal, when the provisions of the Industrial Disputes Act or the MRTU and PULP Act were not attracted. In case of “The State of Karnatka V.s Umadevi” AIR 2006 S.C.Page 81 the Apex Court held that the daily wage workers and those who are not recruited by adopting regular process will not be eligible to get protection under the Labour Laws. Notwithstanding their continuous service for more than 240 days or even for years together. 5. Considering the legal position, employee-Vitthal was not entitled to claim benefit of permanenancy. The impugned Award rendered by the Industrial Court is unsustainable. Consequently, the Writ Petition No. 96 of 1990 is allowed and the impugned Award is set aside. As a corollary of this, the Writ Petition No. 1023 of 1990 stands dismissed. The counsel for the employee i.e. Vithal Pophale invited my attention to the Government Resolution dated 31st January, 1996. He seeks liberty to 6 W.P.No.96.90+1 file representation to avail benefit thereof. He is at liberty to prefer proper representation as may be permissible under the law and the authorities may be consider the same. With these observations, the petitions are disposed of. Consequently the Civil Application No. 3968 of 2005 filed in Writ Petition No. 96 of 1990 stands disposed of. Sd/- ( V.R.KINGAONKAR, J. ) MTK