:1: IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY CIVIL APPELLATE JURISDICTION WRIT PETITION NO. 4753 OF 1996 Shri Gundu Vishnu Chandam ..Petitioner Vs. Beej Gunan Adhikari and Anr. ..Respondents Mr. S.S. Pakale for petitioner. Mr. A.P. Vanarase, AGP for respondent no.1. WITH WRIT PETITION NO. 223 OF 1997 Smt. Draupadi Mahipati Patil and ors. ..Petitioners Vs. The Government of Maharashtra and ors. ..Respondents WITH WRIT PETITION NO. 225 OF 1997 Babanb Dinkar Sankpal and ors. ..Petitioners vs. The Government of Maharashtra and ors. ..Respondents Mr. N.M. Ganguli for petitioners. Mr. A.P. Vanarase, AGP for respondent nos.1 to 3. CORAM: CORAM: CORAM: B.H. B.H. B.H. MARLAPALLE, J. MARLAPALLE, J. MARLAPALLE, J. Date Date Date : January 15, 2008. : January 15, 2008. : January 15, 2008. ORAL ORAL ORAL JUDGMENT: JUDGMENT: JUDGMENT: 1. All these petitions under Article 227 of the :2: Constitution arise from the Judgment and Order dated 17/11/1995 rendered by the Industrial Court at Kolhapur thereby allowing Complaint (ULP) No.127 of 1990 partly in terms of the following directions:- "The respondent is directed to continue the enlisted workers except Rajaram Dhondiba Dhera, so long as the seasonal work is available and not to effect retrenchment without compliance of Sec. 25F, I.D. Act, 1947, in case of as and when cause arises." Hence all the three petitions are being decided by this common judgment. 2. Complaint (ULP) No. 127 of 1990 was filed by the Union, namely, Kolhapur Zilla Shetmazdoor Parishad, Kolhapur seeking a benefit of permanency in employment for 14 daily rated workers engaged by the respondent no.1. The respondent no.2 in W.P. No.4753/96 be deleted forthwith. The Union had contended that the said 14 workers were working for 10 years or so continuously under respondent no.1 and there were other 4 to 5 permanent employees with the :3: said respondent, who were doing similar work as was being assigned to the said workers, except one who was watchman. The Union further alleged that the said workmen were not being given the benefit of permanency only with an intention to deny them the said benefit inspite of the fact that there were permanent vacancies and the nature of the work performed by these daily rated workers was continuous and permanent. The Union claimed that the respondent - Officer was guilty of acts of unfair labour practice under items 5, 6 and 9 of Schedule IV of the M.R.T.U. and P.U.L.P. Act, 1971 (for short the Act). The respondent had filed reply and opposed the complaint by contending that the said daily rated workers were being engaged strictly as per the requirement and only during the season and in any case they were not being employed all days of the month. It was further denied that they were in employment for 10 yeas or so and was also stated that none of them had completed the service of 240 days in any year. Along with the reply, the Chart was submitted giving details of the number of days worked by the said workers right from 1986 onwards. :4: 3. After hearing both the parties, the learned Member of the Industrial Court held that the workers were doing seasonal work and the respondent was not deliberately avoiding to grant permanency and recorded that there were no permanent vacancies for their absorption and, therefore, the respondent was not guilty of unfair labour practice as alleged, except Shri Rajaram Dhondiba Dhera all other workmen working on the establishment of respondent no.1 since 2 to 5 years prior to filing of complaint. Consequently, the prayer for permanency was dismissed. 4. It is clear from the impugned judgment that the Union did not adduce any evidence in support of its contentions that each of the daily rated worker had completed 240 days of service in every year right from 1986 till the complaint was filed i.e. till 1990. The respondent had submitted a statement and contended that none of these workers engaged on all the days of the month and in every month of the year. On the other hand, the statement went to show that they were engaged as and when required during the season. It is pertinent to note at this stage that the Union has not filed any petition and, in fact, :5: these petitions have been filed by some of the 14 daily rated workers for whom the Union had filed Complaint (ULP) No. 127 of 1990. Mr. Ganguly the learned counsel for some of the petitioners submitted that the Model Standing Orders framed by the Government of Maharashtra under the Industrial Employment (Standing Orders) Act, 1946 were applicable to the respondent - Taluka Seed Breeding Centre at Kolhapur, Radha Nagari, Kolhapur and once any of the workers had completed 240 days in any year, he/she was required to be made permanent in employment on account of the applicability of the Model Standing Orders. There is no dispute that the respondent was part of the Department of Agriculture till the year 1998 and subsequently it has become part of the Horticulture Department. In any case, the respondent is a Government Department and, therefore, the recruitment and other service conditions will be governed by the Maharshtra Civil Services Rules as framed under Article 309 of the Constitution. The recruitment as well as the promotion, absorption, confirmation etc. will be strictly as per the said Rules and when such Rules are applicable to the respondent, it cannot be accepted that the provisions of Model Standing Orders :6: will cover or will apply to the daily rated workers engaged on casual basis or on temporary basis. 5. Even otherwise, the respondent had placed before the Industrial Court the statement on record indicating the days of work in respect of every worker and none of them had completed a total 240 days in any year right from 1986 till 1990. The said findings have not been disputed and, therefore, leave alone the benefit of permanency, none of these workers will be entitled even for the Kalelkar Award or for that matter the Badkas Award. During the course of hearing of these petitions an officer from the respondent-department was present and was called upon to file an affidavit as to whether the daily rated workers were continued even as of now and accordingly Mr.Vanarase, the learned AGP, has placed on record affidavits in all these petitions. In Writ Petition No. 4753 of 1996 filed by Shri Gundu Chandam in his individual capacity, it has been pointed out that in none of the years from 1991 to 2007 he had completed a period of 240 days of service though before the Industrial Court it was brought on record that from 1986 to 1990 in some years he had put in 240 days of :7: work. The statement annexed to the affidavit filed to day indicates that in each year from 1991 to 2007 the petitioner worked in a year from 61 days to a maximum 184 days and it is more than clear that he was employed on seasonal basis. In 1997 he was employed for 61 days, in 2000 he was employed for 64 days, in 2001 he was employed for 94 days, in 2005 he was employed for 113 days, in 2006 he was employed for 130 days and in 2007 he was employed for only 66 days. Mr. Pakale the learned counsel disputed this position on the basis of the oral instructions received. In Writ Petition No. 225 of 1997 the affidavit filed by the Agricultural Officer, Agri Polyclinic Taluka Seed Farm, Radhanagari, it has been pointed out that Shri Shankar Kamble was not employed in the years 1994 to 1996 and at no point of time he was employed for a maximum of 212 days. He was undoubtedly a seasonal employee. Similarly Rajaram Dhere was not engaged right from 1992 to 1997 and again from 2005 to 2007. Similarly, from the year 1993 to 1995 Gundu Davar was not in employment from 1993 to 1995 and in the year 1992 he was employed only for 2 days. In Writ Petition No. 223 of 1997 the affidavit filed today shows that all the three concerned workmen were :8: employed on seasonal basis and in all the years from 1991 to 2007 none of them had completed 240 days of service. 6. Even if the said statements have not been accepted by the learned counsel for the petitioners, the fact remains that before the Industrial Court there was no evidence to show that each of them had completed 240 days of service in every year during the last five years before the complaint was filed. The Industrial Court, therefore, rightly held that merely because they were continued for more than five years as seasonal employees, did not make out a case of unfair labour practice either under Items 5, 6 or 9 of Schedule IV of the Act. The said reasoning of the Industrial Court can neither be said to be perverse or manifestly erroneous so as to call for interference under Article 227 of the Constitution. On the other hand, the evidence adduced by both the parties does support the findings recorded by the Industrial Court. 7. In the premises, these petitions fail and the same are hereby dismissed. Rule discharged with no order as to costs. However, it is clarified that if :9: any other petitioner approaches an appropriate forum seeking directions for the benefits either under Kalelkar or Badkas Award, such proceedings shall be decided on their own merits and without being influenced by any observations made in the impugned judgment or in this judgment. (B.H. (B.H. (B.H. Marlapalle,J.) Marlapalle,J.) Marlapalle,J.)