:1: IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY CIVIL APPELLATE JURISDICTION WRIT PETITION NO. 4404 OF 1995 1. The Vice Chancellor Mahatma Phule Krishi Mahavidyalaya Rahuri, Dist. Ahmednagar and anr. ..Petitioners Vs. 1. Smt. Gitabai Mahadeo Amarale and ors. ..Respondents WITH WRIT PETITION NO. 4410 OF 1995 1. The Principal Krishi Mahavidyalaya Shivaji Nagar, Pune-5 and anr. ..Petitioners Vs. 1. Smt. Sulochana Ashok Sawant and ors. ..Respondents Mrs. Neeta Karnik for petitioners. CORAM: CORAM: CORAM: B.H. B.H. B.H. MARLAPALLE, J. MARLAPALLE, J. MARLAPALLE, J. Date Date Date : January 28, 2008. : January 28, 2008. : January 28, 2008. ORAL ORAL ORAL JUDGMENT: JUDGMENT: JUDGMENT: 1. Both these petitions impugn a common Judgment and Order dated 9/3/1994 rendered by the Industrial Court at Pune in Complaints (ULP) No.590 to 594 of 1987 and 610 to 627, 660 to 664 of 1987 and 344 of :2: 1988. In the first five complaints the Principal, Krishi Mahavidyalaya, Pune and the Project Co-ordinator, Indian Council Agriculture Research, Krishi Mahavidyalaya, Pune were impleaded as respondents, whereas in all the remaining complaints the Vice Chancellor, Mahatma Phule Krishi Vidyapeeth, Rahuri and the Principal, Krishi Mahavidyalaya, Shivajinagar, Pune were impleaded as respondents. It was the case of the complainants that they were being engaged on temporary basis for years together as Majdoors on the Manjari Farm of Mahatma Phule Agriculture University (Mahatma Phule Krishi Vidyapeeth) Ahmednagar and they were not being made permanent and as a result thereof they were deprived of the benefits available to the permanent employees doing same kind of work as the complainants were doing. The Industrial Court noted that as per the reply submitted by the respondents-the present petitioners, the complainants in Complaints (ULP) No.610 to 627 of 1987 except the complainant in Complaint (ULP) No. 612 of 1987 were made permanent. Similarly, the complainants in Complaints (ULP) No.590 to 594 of 1987 were also made permanent and so was the case with the complainants in Complaints (ULP) No.660 :3: to 664 of 1987. The question, therefore, before the Industrial Court was the date on which the benefits of permanency be extended. In the impugned judgment the Industrial Court held that the present petitioners were guilty of unfair labour practice under Item 6 of Schedule IV of the M.R.T.U. & P.U.L.P. Act, 1971 as well as Item 9 of the said Schedule. The present petitioners were directed to treat the complainants permanent employees from the date on which they had completed 1000 days of work and give them the consequential benefits. The first petition has been filed by the Vice Chancellor, Mahatma Phule Krishi Mahavidyalaya, Rahuri and the Principal, Krishi Mahavidyalaya, Shivaji Nagar, Pune, whereas the second petition has been filed by the Principal, Krishi Mahavidyalaya, Shivaji Nagar, Pune and the Project Co-ordinator, Indian Council Agriculture Research, Krishi Mahavidyalaya, Pune. 2. It has been contended by the petitioners that the Agricultural Universities are established and function under the provisions of the Maharashtra Agricultural Universities (Krishi Vidyapeeth) Act, 1983 and the State Government controls all the :4: Agricultural Universities in the State and is responsible for financing them. The Universities own large tracts of land which are used for agricultural education and research activities for which the Universities as well as the College had engaged daily wage labourers. Approximately 4000 such labourers were working at a given point of time under the Agricultural University at its various establishments like the Pune Krishi Mahavidyalaya as well as the Centre of Indian Council for Agriculture Research, Krishi Mahavidyalaya Pune. As per the petitioners when the State Government has not sanctioned the posts for absorption of such casual labourers, the petitioners could not be held to have engaged in unfair labour practice under Items 6 and 9 of Schedule IV of the M.R.T.U. & P.U.L.P. Act, 1971 on the grounds that the complainants were being engaged for years together on the sole ground to deprive them the benefits of permanency. Without filling any permanent posts, subject to the available vacancies as sanctioned by the State Government, engaging of some casual labourers even for months or years together will not per se amount to an act of unfair labour practice and, therefore, it was not proper for the :5: Industrial Court to hold that the petitioners were guilty of unfair labour practice. It has been further contended that the benefits of permanency will be granted as noted by the Industrial Court, but the same benefits was granted only to those who could be accommodated against the sanctioned vacancies. 3. The respondents have been served and none appears for them. These petitions have been pending for the last more than 12 years. In the meanwhile, the petitioners had approached the Apex Court challenging the Judgment and Order of this court dated 16/9/1997. After the complaints of unfair labour practice like in the instant petitions were allowed, the complainants had approached the Labour Court by filing Applications under Section 33C(2) of the Industrial Disputes Act, 1947 and all these applications came to be allowed by directing the University to pay a sum of Rs.4,16,97,937.98 paise only. This order was confirmed by the High Court on 16/9/1997. The Apex Court considered the issue regarding the allegations of unfair labour practice within the meaning of Item 6 of Schedule IV of the Act and the Supreme Court, in the case of Mahatma Phule :6: Agricultural University and ors. vs. Nasik Zilla Sheth Kamgar Union [AIR 2001 SC 3228], has observed as under:- "... The complaint was against the Universities. The High Court notes, that as there were no posts the employees could not be made permanent. Once it comes to the conclusion that for lack of posts the employees could not be made permanent how could it then go on to hold that they were continued as "badlies", Casuals or temporaries with the object of depriving them of the status and privileges of permanent employees. To be noted that the complaint was not against the State Government. The complaint was against the Universities. The inaction on the part of the State Government to create posts would not mean that an unfair labour practice had been committed by the Universities. The reasoning given by the High Court to conclude that the case was squarely covered by Item 6 of Schedule IV of the MRTU and PULP Act cannot be sustained at all and the impugned judgment :7: has to be and is set aside...." 4. At the same time, the Apex Court made it clear that all those complainants who could not be granted benefits in the complaints filed under the Act, would be entitled to the payments and benefits given under the award dated 20/2/1985 in Reference (IT) No.48 of 1981. Undoubtedly, the law laid down by the Apex Court in the case of Mahatma Phule Agricultural University (Supra) would be squarely applicable while considering the impugned judgments in these petitions and consequently it will have to be held that the findings of the Industrial Court of unfair labour practice against the petitioners are unsustainable. 5. In the premises, these petitions succeed and they are allowed partly. The findings of the Industrial Court that the petitioners are guilty of unfair labour practice within the meaning of Item 6 of Schedule IV of the Act are hereby quashed and set aside. However, it is held that complainants shall be entitled for the benefits and payments available under the award dated 20/2/1985 in Reference (IT) No. 48 of :8: 1981. If such benefits have not yet been extended by the petitioners to the complainants who are eligible as per the decision of the Apex Court, as quoted hereinabove, the petitioners shall calculate the arrears and pay the same to the concerned complainants as expeditiously as possible and in any case before 31/3/2008. Rule is made absolute accordingly. No costs. (B.H. (B.H. (B.H. Marlapalle,J.) Marlapalle,J.) Marlapalle,J.)