221lpa343.10.odt 1 . IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY NAGPUR BENCH, NAGPUR L.P.A.No.343 of 2010 in Writ Petition No.1376 of 1997 (D) (Mah. State Road Transport Corp., Nagpur and Ors. vs. Giridhar s/o. Baburao Thate) Office Notes, Office Memoranda of Coram, appearances, Court's orders or directions and Registrar's orders. Court's or Judge's orders Coram: S. A. Bobde and P. D. Kode, JJ. Date : 22/11/2010. Heard Mr. V.G.Wankhede, Adv. for the appellants and Mr.C.V.Jagdale, Adv. for the respondent. This is an appeal against the judgment of the learned Single Judge of this Court dt. 11.6.2009 by which the learned Single Judge has set aside the impugned orders refusing to grant regular time scale of pay and permanency in the service of respondent/Corporation. The respondent herein was engaged as a cleaner on piece-rate basis. There was a settlement between the employer and the workmen in the year 1956. As per the settlement, it was obligatory on the part of the appellant herein/MSRTC to make the employee permanent as soon as he completes 180 days of his service in the post of cleaner. Even though there was such settlement, the learned Industrial Court 221lpa343.10.odt 2 . declined to grant relief to the respondent/workman under the provisions of the Maharashtra Act No.1 of 1972 under Item 5, 6, 9 and 10 of Schedule IV of the Maharashtra Recognition of Trade Unions and Prevention of Unfair Labour Practices Act, 1971. The learned Single Judge allowed the Writ Petitions filed by the workmen after rejecting the contention that Uma Devi's case {Secretary, State of Karnataka and Ors .vs. Umadevi and Ors., 2006 AIR SCW 1991} is applicable to the facts of the present case. The learned Single Judge found that the workmen had been working for a long time without any interruption. We find that there is no merit in the instant appeal, particularly in view of the judgment of the Supreme Court in the case of Maharashtra State Road Transport Corporation and another vs. Casteribe Rajya P. Karmachari Sanghatana reported at 2009 III CLR 262, wherein in paragraph 34, the Supreme Court has held as follows : “ The question, now, remains to be seen is whether the recruitment of these workers is in conformity with Standing Order 503 and, if not, what is its effect ? No doubt, Standing Order 221lpa343.10.odt 3 . 503 prescribes the procedure for recruitment of Class IV employees of the Corporation which is to the effect that such posts shall be filled up after receiving the recommendations from the Service Selection Board and this exercise does not seem to have been done but Standing Orders cannot be elevated to the statutory rules. These are not statutory in nature. We find merit in the submission of Mr.Shekhar Naphade, learned Senior Counsel that Standing Orders are contractual in nature and do not have a statutory force and breach of Standing Orders by the Corporation is itself an unfair labour practice. The concerned employees having been exploited by the Corporation for years together by engaging them on piece rate basis, it is too late in the day for them to urge that procedure laid down in Standing Order No.503 having not been followed, these employees could not be given status and principles of permanency. The argument of the Corporation, if accepted, would tantamount to putting premium on their unlawful act of engaging in unfair labour practice. It 221lpa343.10.odt 4 . was strenuously urged by the learned Senior Counsel for the Corporation that industrial court having found that the Corporation indulged in unfair labour practice in employing the complainants as casuals on piece rate basis, the only direction that could have been given to the Corporation was to cease and desist from indulging into such unfair labour practice and no direction of according permanency to these employees could have been given. We are afraid, the argument ignores and overlooks the specific power given to the Industrial/Labour Court under Section 30(1)(b) to take affirmative action against the erring employer which as noticed above is of wide amplitude and comprehends within its fold a direction to the employer to accord permanency to the employees affected by such unfair labour practice.” There is, thus, no merit in the instant appeal. Hence, it is dismissed. No order as to costs. JUDGE JUDGE jais