WP/366 & 399/2011 1 IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY CIVIL APPELLATE JURISDICTION WRIT PETITION NO.366 OF 2011 Pimpri Chinchwad Municipal Corporation & Anr. ... Petitioners V/s. Santosh Dynanoba Ghavane ... Respondent ALONG WITH WRIT PETITION NO.399 OF 2011 Pimpri Chinchwad Municipal Corporation & Anr. ... Petitioners V/s. Pimpri Chinchwad Mahanagarpalika Karmachari Mahasangh, Pune ... Respondent Mr. S.R. Nargolkar i/b. Mr. Aumkar Joshi for the Petitioners. None for the Respondents. CORAM : SMT. NISHITA MHATRE, J. DATE : 25 TH JANUARY, 2011. P.C. : 1. These Writ Petitions are directed against the common judgement and order passed by the Industrial Court, Pune on 25th October, 2010 in Complaints (ULP) Nos.190 of 2005 and 225 of 2005. The Industrial Court declared that the petitioners had committed unfair labour practices under Items 6 and 9 of Schedule IV of the Maharashtra Recognition of Trade Unions and Prevention of WP/366 & 399/2011 2 Unfair Labour Practices Act, 1971. It further directed the petitioners to grant permanency to all employees represented by the Union and the individual, who had also filed complaint, and the consequential benefits were also to be extended to them. 2. The contention of the complainants, i.e. the respondents herein, was that the petitioners had continued several workmen on temporary basis for years together without making them permanent with a view to deprive them of the benefits of permanency. 3. The Industrial Court, on a consideration of the evidence led before it and the judgement of the Supreme Court, held that there were vacant posts despite which the petitioners have not made the respondents-workmen permanent. 4. The learned Advocate for the petitioners has relied on a judgment of the Supreme Court in the case of Secretary, State of Karnataka and Ors. vs. Umadevi and Ors., reported in 2006 II CLR 261, in support of his contention that the respondents-workmen could not be made permanent as they were appointed only on a temporary basis. WP/366 & 399/2011 3 4. The Industrial Court has rightly relied on the judgment of the Supreme Court in the case of Maharashtra State Road Transport Corporation & Anr. vs. Casteribe Rajya P. Karmchari Sanghatana, reported in 2009 III CLR 262, wherein it has held that the judgement in the case of Secretary, State of Karnataka and Ors. vs. Umadevi (supra) does not denude the powers vested in the Industrial Court to grant reliefs under the Maharashtra Recognition of Trade Unions and Prevention of Unfair Labour Practices Act, 1971. In fact the petitioners had not led any evidence in support of their contentions. 5. Both these Writ Petitions are rejected.