WP/77/1998 1 IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY CIVIL APPELLATE JURISDICTION WRIT PETITION NO.77 OF 1998 Municipal Corporation for the City of Kalyan, Kalyan ... Petitioner V/s. Kalyan Municipal Staff Union, Kalyan ... Respondent Mr. A.S. Rao for the Petitioner. Mr. R.S. Apte for the Respondent. CORAM : SMT. NISHITA MHATRE, J. DATE : 1 ST FEBRUARY, 2011. ORAL JUDGEMENT: 1. This Writ Petition has been filed against the order passed by the Industrial Court, Thane on 29th September, 1997 in Complaint (ULP) No.705 of 1994. The respondent-Union had filed a complaint under Items 6, 9 and 10 of Schedule IV of the Maharashtra Recognition of Trade Unions and Prevention of Unfair Labour Practices Act, 1971, (for short “the MRTU & PULP Act”), on behalf of the workmen, whose names were listed in Annexure “A” to the complaint. It was contended that the workers continued in employment for more than four years without being granted a permanent status. It was pleaded that this act of the petitioner-Management was contrary to the Awards which govern the service conditions of the workers. Under these Awards, the workmen were entitled to WP/77/1998 2 permanency after 18 months from the date they joined service with the petitioner- Corporation. 2. The petitioner-Corporation opposed the complaint contending that the workmen were employed on probation for two years and, therefore, question of granting them permanency before they completed that period did not arise. 3. Evidence was led by the parties and the respondent-Union proved that the petitioner-Corporation had indulged in an unfair labour practice by continuing the workmen on probation contrary to the Award of Shri N.D. Patil and the later Award of Shri G.K. Phadke. The Industrial Court, therefore, concluded that the workmen were entitled to permanency. 4. An affidavit has been filed by one of the workmen concerned in the Petition placing on record the fact that on 30th May, 2010, the services of the workmen listed in the Annexure “A” to the complaint have been regularized by the Commissioner of the petitioner-Corporation. Accordingly, an order was passed on 30th May, 2010 in that respect by the Commissioner of the petitioner-Corporation. This order, it appears, has been passed in view of the Resolution No.96 dated 17th February, 2009 passed by the General Body of the petitioner-Corporation in which a decision to regularize and confirm the services of the employees was passed. WP/77/1998 3 The resolution indicates that the workmen would be entitled to permanency from the date of completion of their probation. 5. In my opinion, the Tribunal has not committed any error by concluding that in the earlier Awards, the period of probation was restricted to 18 months. The N.D. Patil Award which was passed has been published in M.G.G. Part I L dated 3rd August, 1967. Clause 4.14 of the N.D. Patil Award deals with permanency, which reads as follows : “4.14 Demand No.13 – Permanency :- The unions complain that the Municipality does indulge in unfair labour practices such as creating an artificial break in services. It is seen from the records of the Municipal Council that about 250 employees are temporary. The unions also submit that the Municipal Council must adopt a proper scheme for making its employees permanent. Taking all the factors into consideration I give the following direction - All workman who have been in the non-permanent service of the Municipal Council and who have put in eighteen months of actual work in the aggregate (in broken periods or continuously) within a period of Four years from the date of their very first employment shall be made permanent with effect from 1st August, 1967 or from any later date from which they become entitled to be made permanent and such workmen shall then become entitled to all the benefits available to the permanent workmen of the Municipal Council. If any amount becomes payable by reason of this direction in this Award it shall be paid to those entitled to it within three months of the date of the publication of this Award.” WP/77/1998 4 6. This Award was later replaced by the G.K. Phadke Award which was published in M.G.G. Part I L dated 4th March, 1982. Clause (VII) of this Award stipulates that the directions contained for permanency in the N.D. Patil Award should be implemented. Clause (VII) of the Phadke Award reads as follows : “(VII).Conversion of Daily rated employees.- Mr. N.D. Patil in his award has already given direction to Council when a daily rated workman should be made permanent. Some workmen filed suits against the Council for breach of award. Labour Court has already given decision in favour of workmen. Council’s appeal against this decision to High Court is already rejected. Another set of workmen have also filed suit. In view of this, I direct the Council to implement immediately the directives given by Mr. N.D. Patil Award.” 7. This Award was then terminated and a Settlement was arrived at between the petitioner-Corporation and the respondent-Union representing the workmen in which it was decided that all issues which were not specifically referred to in the Settlement would be governed by the earlier Awards. This Settlement was accepted by Shri Malvankar, Industrial Tribunal and an Award was passed in terms of the Settlement and was published in M.G.G. Part I L on 30th December, 1990. 8. The Industrial Court has, therefore, committed no error in ensuring that these Awards are implemented. There was no evidence on record led by the WP/77/1998 5 petitioner-Corporation to establish that the Malvankar Award, which was the last Award produced by the workmen, had in any way replaced or that the service conditions in that Award had been adhered to. 9. It is well settled that the benefits of an Award or Settlement must continue till it is replaced by either an Award or Settlement. This has been so held by the Supreme Court in the case of The Life Insurance Corporation of India vs. D.J. Bahadur & Ors., reported in 1980 LAB I.C. 1218. Mr. Rao, the learned Advocate for the petitioner-Corporation, has not placed any material on record indicating that the Malvankar Award has been terminated and that it has been replaced by any other Award of Settlement. Therefore, the workmen would be entitled to any benefit flowing from the Malvankar Award read with the G.K. Phadke Award and the N.D. Patil Award. 10. In my opinion, the Industrial Court has considered these Awards and has, therefore, granted permanency. The contention of the petitioner-Corporation that the probation period was for two years is contrary to the Awards and, therefore, the Industrial Court has rightly allowed the complaint. Even accepting the contention of Mr. Rao that the probation period is of the two years, the workmen have already been completed this period and, therefore, in my opinion, the Industrial Court has not committed any error in allowing the complaint. WP/77/1998 6 11. The Writ Petition is dismissed. Rule discharged. No order as to costs. 12. The workmen will be entitled to the benefits of permanency. 13. The amount deposited by the petitioner-Corporation shall be paid over to the nine workmen concerned in the complaint together with the interest accrued thereon pro-rata.