1 UNREPORTED IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY BENCH AT AURANGABAD. WRIT PETITION NO.3368 OF 1993. The Executive Engineer, Nandur Madmeshwar Canal Division, Vaijapur Taluka Dist.Aurangabad. ... Petitioner. Versus 1. Sk.Abdul Sk.Babu, Aged major, Occ.Mustering Assistant, R/o At Post Manjari, Taluka Gangapur, Dist. Aurangabad. 2. The Presiding Officer, Labour Court, Aurangabad. 3. The State of Maharashtra ... Respondents. ... WITH WRIT PETITION NO.3367 OF 1993. The Executive Engineer, Nandur Madmeshwar Canal Division, Vaijapur Taluka Dist.Aurangabad. ... Petitioner. Versus 1. Sayed Hasan Osman, Aged major, Occ. 2 R/o Wahegaon, Tq.Gangapur, Dist. Aurangabad. 2. The Presiding Officer, Labour Court, Aurangabad. 3. The State of Maharashtra ... Respondents. ... WITH WRIT PETITION NO.3369 OF 1993. The Executive Engineer, Nandur Madmeshwar Canal Division, Vaijapur Taluka Dist.Aurangabad. ... Petitioner. Versus 1. Mohaniraj Asaram Borude, Aged major, Occ.Nil, R/o Gangapur District, Aurangabad. 2. The Presiding Officer, Labour Court, Aurangabad. 3. The State of Maharashtra ... Respondents. WITH WRIT PETITION NO.3370 OF 1993. The Executive Engineer, Nandur Madmeshwar Canal Division, Vaijapur Taluka Dist.Aurangabad. ... Petitioner. Versus 1. Prabhakar S/o Gangadhar Wagh, 3 Aged major, Occ.Nil, R/o At Post : Warkhed, Taluka Gangapur District, Aurangabad. 2. The Presiding Officer, Labour Court, Aurangabad. 3. The State of Maharashtra ... Respondents. ... WITH WRIT PETITION NO.3371 OF 1993. The Executive Engineer, Nandur Madmeshwar Canal Division, Vaijapur Taluka Dist.Aurangabad. ... Petitioner. Versus 1. Ravindra S/o Ramrao Kadam, (Mustering Assistant) Sonargalli At Post & Taluka Gangapur, Dist. Auragnabad. 2. The Presiding Officer, Labour Court, Aurangabad. 3. The State of Maharashtra ... Respondents. ... Mr.T.B.Bhosale, advocate for the petitioner. Mr.D.V.Tele, A.G.P. for the State. Mr.T.K.Prabhakaran, advocate for the Respondent NO.1. ... CORAM : V.R.KINGAONKAR,J. Date : 18.07.2009. 4 ORAL JUDGMENT 1. This group of petitions is being decided together inasmuch as the questions of facts and law involved therein are identical. 2. By these petitions, the petitioner impugns judgments rendered by the learned Presiding Officer of Labour Court, Aurangabad, in Reference (IDA) No.91/1992, Reference (IDA) No. 99/1992, Reference (IDA) No.96/1992, Reference (IDA) No.94/1992. The learned Judge of the Labour Court allowed the Reference proceedings and directed the petitioner to employ the Respondents in service with continuity and back wages. 3. The facts giving rise to these Reference proceedings are few. The Respondents were employed as Mustering Assistants to work in Gangapur Taluka on construction site of Nandur- Madmeshwar Sub-Division at Bordahegaon which was a Minor Irrigation Project. They asserted that they were in continuous service and had worked for more than 240 days prior to the oral 5 termination of their services. They further submitted that the termination of their services was in breach of Section 25 of the Industrial Disputes Act, 1947. They contended that the petitioner committed violation of Section 25-G of the Industrial Disputes Act and adopted unfair labour practices. Consequently, they challenged the termination orders by filing Reference proceedings. They sought reinstatement. The case of the petitioner was that the Respondents were not regularly employed as such. It was contended that the Respondents were temporarily appointed to work on the EGS as per availability of the work. The Minor Irrigation Project was completed and thereafter no work was available for the Respondents and as such their services were terminated with effect from 1.11.1987. The petitioner further contended that the Respondents were appointed on consolidated salary on work charged establishment only where there was strength of labours between 50 to 150 and that there was no appointment on any post as such. Consequently, the petitioner urged to dismiss the Reference proceedings. 6 4. By the impugned orders, the leaned Presiding Officer of the Labour Court allowed the Reference proceedings and directed that the petitioner shall reinstate the Respondents in service with continuity and back wages. 5. The learned advocate appearing for the petitioner makes a statement that none of the Respondents was subsequently reinstated in service due to non-availability of work inasmuch as the work of the Project was completed. The Respondents are not presently employed. The learned advocate for the petitioner has placed on record a copy of communication dated 17.7.2009, received by him in this behalf marked "X". None appears for the Respondent No.1. 6. Common question involved in these petitions is whether the Respondents could be treated as "workmen" within the meaning of Section 2(s) of the Industrial Disputes Act, 1947. It is amply clear that they were employed without following any recruitment process. No advertisement was given so as to fill up any post 7 as such. They were employed on a special Project while implementing Employment Guarantee Scheme (EGS). The EGS is operated with a view to combat financial crisis arising out of special circumstances like drought, famine, lack of employment etc. The Government did not create any post of Mustering Assistants on establishment of any Department. The employment of the Respondents was temporary. In a similar group of petitions (W.P.No.703/1997, W.P.No.847/96, W.P.No.948/1996) etc., a Single Bench of this Court held that EGS is not an Industry and, therefore, persons working in EGS can not be treated as "workmen". 7. Considering the nature of the employment of the Respondents, it is amply clear that there was no reason for the Labour Court to infer that they are the "workmen" within the meaning of Section 2(s) of the I.D. Act. Needless to say, they were not retrenched as such. Consequently, the petitioner was not under obligation to comply with Section 25-F and Section 25-G of the I.D. Act. The learned 8 Presiding Officer of the Labour Court committed patent error while holding that termination of the services of the Respondents is illegal. The Respondents were not entitled to seek reinstatement and, therefore, the impugned judgments and orders rendered by the Labour Court are unsustainable. 8. In the result, the petitions are allowed. The impugned judgments and orders rendered by the Labour Court are quashed. The Respondents are, however, at liberty to prefer representations for due absorption or reemployment if they are eligible to avail benefit of the Government Resolution dated 1.12.1995, whereby a scheme is drawn to accommodate the Muster Assistants. In case their juniors are accommodated then representations of the Respondents may be sympathetically considered. The petitions are accordingly disposed of. The Civil Applications are also 9 disposed of. (V.R.KINGAONKAR,J.) Authenticated Copy (Pvt.Secy. to Hon'ble Judge) asp/office/wp336893