1 IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY NAGPUR BENCH, NAGPUR. WRIT PETITION NO. 3143 OF 2009 (Mohan M. Zunzunkar and others ..Vs.. V.N.I.T. and another) WITH W.P.3110 of 2009. (V.N.I.T. and another ..Vs.. Mohan M. Zunzunkar and others ..) _______________________________________________________________________ Office Notes, Office Memoramda of Coram, appearances, Court's orders of directions Court's or Judge's orders. and Registrar's Orders. ______________________________________________________________________________ Mr. M.V. Mahokar, counsel for petitioner. Mr. A.R. Patil, counsel for respondent no.1. (in W.P.3143/2009) Mr. A.R. And K.A. Patil, counsel for petitioner. Mr. A.R. Patil, counsel for respondent no.1. (in W.P.3110/2009) CORAM : R.C.CHAVAN, J. DATED : JULY 30, 2009. 1. The learned counsel for the workmen states that they too have challenged the same order which is challenged in W.P. 3143/2009 by filing Writ Petition No.3110 of 2009. By consent W.P. 3110/2009 is taken on board today. 2. These petitions by workmen and management are directed against the orders passed by the learned Member Industrial Court, Nagpur refusing interim relief in complaint of 2 workmen, but extending the earlier interim orders continuing the workmen in service till 31st July 2009. The workmen are aggrieved because interim relief is refused and the management is aggrieved because of order continued up to 31st July 2009. 3. I have heard learned Advocates for petitioners in both the petitions. The workmen had been appointed initially in 2004 upon interview on recommendation of Zillah Sainik Board. The first appointment orders indicate that the appointment was for period not extending 3 months from the date of joining of duty ; engagement was purely temporary and that the candidates were not permitted to claim continuance even on ad-hoc basis. It appears that again in 2006 some interviews were held, the workmen concerned were selected for being appointed as Security Guards and again they were appointed at various points of time for periods up to three months, without giving break. According to the workmen since they have continued in employment for a period of 5 years, they were entitled to absorption and regularization in service and therefore they have filed complaint before the Industrial Court and had sought interim protection of their employment till the disposal of the complaints by the Industrial Court. 4. These complaints were contested by the employer by first raising a dispute about the jurisdiction of the Industrial Court, which may not be seriously raised. Yet, it will be required 3 to be dealt by Industrial Court as it is not shown that it is decided yet. The employer next submitted that having accepted appointment for a fixed term on certain conditions the workmen were not entitled to insist upon regularization of service. It was next submitted that the employer had already entered into a contract with some private security guard agency in view of policy decision of the government and therefore it will not be in a position to continue the workmen. 5. After considering the rival contentions the learned Member, Industrial Court, refused interim relief to the workmen but extended interim protection granted till 31st July 2009 by his impugned orders. 6. I have heard both the learned counsel for the petitioners in both the petitions. There can be no doubt, that workmen who are continued form time to time, would be entitled to absorption. There can also be no doubt that ordinarily conditions in the orders of appointment which are contrary to the Statute or the Statutory Rules would be void. There can also be no doubt that policy decisions which violates Statute or Statutory Rules cannot be implemented. In view of this, it may not be necessary to dwell at length on the three judgments referred to by the learned counsel for workmen namely (1974) 3 Supreme Court Cases 330 (Western India Match Company Ltd. V/s. Workmen), 2003 (1) Mh.L.J. 745 (Saudi Arabian Air Lines 4 V/s. Ashok Margovind Panchal and another) and (2008) 3 Supreme Court Cases 432 (Basic Education Board, U.P. V/s. Upendra Rai and others). 7. These questions however could be properly raised only after a full adjudication before the Industrial Court. It would be impermissible to interfere with an interim order of the Industrial Court. Workmen had been specifically made aware that they are appointed for three months only when they were first appointed. Simply because they were continuously reappointed rather than the employer exercising the right of terminating them, the issue of termination of workmen cannot be summarily decided without the trial. They cannot be ordered to be continued at a loss to the employer who claims to have engaged a private security agency, presumably at a costs. Therefore the case of the workmen for being absorbed or continued in service would have to be decided only after a trial before the Industrial Court and at this stage it cannot be said that the learned Member, Industrial Court, was wrong in refusing interim relief to the workmen. The learned Member was also not wrong in extending interim protection till 31st July 2009 so as to enable the workmen to knock the doors of this Court. 8. In view of this, there is no substance in both the petitions, the same are summarily disposed of. The learned Member, Industrial Court, should endeavour to dispose of 5 complaint as early as possible and at the most within a period of 9 months. 9. Both the learned counsel for the parties undertake to co-operate with the learned Member, Industrial Court, in getting the case disposed of. JUDGE nvt.