WP/211/1999 1 IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY CIVIL APPELLATE JURISDICTION WRIT PETITION NO.211 OF 1999 The Civil Surgeon, Chhatrapati Pramila Raje Rugnalaya, Kolhapur & Anr. ... Petitioners V/s. Ramesh Gangaram Kambale ... Respondent Mr. P.G. Sawant for the Petitioners. None for the Respondent. CORAM : SMT. NISHITA MHATRE, J. DATE : 18 TH NOVEMBER, 2010. ORAL JUDGEMENT : 1. This Writ Petition has been preferred against the order dated 13th October, 1998 passed by the Industrial Court, Kolhapur in Complaint (ULP) No.200 of 1994. By this order, the Industrial Court has held that the petitioners have committed unfair labour practices under Items 5, 6 and 9 of Schedule IV of the Maharashtra Recognition of Trade Unions and Prevention of Unfair Labour Practices Act, 1971. The petitioners have been directed to grant permanency to the respondent with effect from 6th June, 1994 besides paying him consequential benefits. 2. The petitioners had employed the respondent as a “Ward Boy” in their Hospital at Kolhapur. As he was not granted the WP/211/1999 2 benefits of permanency despite having completed 240 days in service, the respondent filed Complaint (ULP) No.200 of 1994. The respondent contended that he was continuously working with the petitioners. Notional breaks after 29 days in service were given by the petitioners. He pleaded that although he was at Sr. No.9 on the Waiting List for Ward Boys, the petitioners had made persons who were junior to him permanent in service. 3. The petitioners filed a written statement contending that since the Hospital where the respondent was employed was a Government Hospital, the services of the respondent were governed by the Maharashtra Civil Services Rules. The petitioners contended that the respondent had been employed temporarily in a leave vacancy and, therefore, was not entitled to permanency. 4. The appointment orders issued to the respondent by the petitioners were placed on record before the Industrial Court. Several other documents were also produced by the respondent. In his deposition, the respondent has stated that he worked for 240 days, but with artificial breaks. He also deposed to the fact that his juniors had been made permanent while he was continued as a temporary employee. WP/211/1999 3 5. The petitioners examined their Superintendent. This witness has admitted that the respondent was employed pursuant to his application made with the Employment Exchange and a Social Welfare Department. He also denied that the respondent had worked for 240 days in service with either artificial or notional breaks. He has, however, admitted that those who were junior to the respondent in the seniority list had been made permanent. The said witness has further admitted that the respondent was continued in service for more than three years as a temporary workman. 6. In these circumstances, the Industrial Court was of the view that the respondent-workman was entitled to permanency. There is no evidence on record contrary to that of the respondent, that he had in fact put in more than 240 days in service, nor is there any evidence to indicate that the respondent had not worked for over three years with the petitioners. In these circumstances, in my view, the Industrial Court cannot be faulted for having allowed the Complaint (ULP) No.200 of 1994. 7. In the present case although this Petition was admitted in 1999, the impugned order dated 13th October, 1998 was not WP/211/1999 4 stayed. Admittedly, the respondent is employed with the petitioners and he would be entitled to the benefits of permanency pursuant to the impugned order. The learned AGP points out that despite the order of the Industrial Court, the respondent has been irregular in service in attendance. According to him, therefore, the order of the Industrial Court must be set aside. 8. The irregularity, if any, of the respondent after the impugned order was passed could be the subject matter of departmental proceedings against the respondent. However, the order dated 13th October, 1998 passed by the Industrial Court, Kolhapur in Complaint (ULP) No.200 of 1994 need not be interfered with merely because the respondent has been irregular in attendance thereafter. 9. The Writ Petition is dismissed. 10. Rule discharged.