1 unreported IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY BENCH AT AURANGABAD. WRIT PETITION NO.1454 OF 1991. 1. The State of Maharashtra Irrigation Department, Mantralaya, Bombay-32 through Secretary. 2. Nasik Irrigation Division, Nasik (through the Executive Engineer). ... Petitioners. Versus Ahmednagar Zilla Raste Imarati Va Patbhandhare Kamgar Union, "Shramik" Tilak Road, Ahmednagar. ... Respondent. ... Mr.N.N.Jadhav, A.G.P. for the petitioners. Mr.A.S.Shelke, advocate holding for Mr.S.K.Shelke, advocate for the Respondent. ... CORAM : V.R.KINGAONKAR,J. Date : 15.01.2010. ORAL JUDGMENT 1. The petitioners impugn award rendered by learned Member of Industrial Court, Ahmednagar 2 in complaint (ULP) No.47/1987. The Industrial Court directed the petitioners to give benefit of permanency to 14 workers, who are members of the Respondent Union, with effect from 17.3.1987. The Industrial Court further directed the petitioners to pay arrears to the said 14 workers as a sequel to grant of permanency benefits. 2. The Respondent - Union filed the complaint application on the allegations that the daily rated workers were being paid less amount and were not being given benefits like permanent workers. It was alleged that the daily rated workers were being appointed on casual or temporary basis and were being deprived of the benefits which were available to permanent workers. It was further contended that as per settlement between the Irrigation Department and its workers, known as "Kalelkar Settlement" the daily rated workers, who had completed continuous service for five (5) years, were required to be converted on regular basis. The further allegation of the Respondent was that the petitioners had not complied with the terms of 3 the Kalelkar Settlement and also adopted unfair labour practices in breach of Model Standing Orders and Item No.IX of Schedule IV of the Industrial Disputes Act. 3. The petitioners contended that the settlement was arrived at but proposal was required to be sent to the Government for absorption of the daily rated workers as C.R.T. employees. It was contended that unless the workers had completed continuous service of five (5) years, the regularisation was difficult in view of the Government's Policy. The Industrial Court allowed the complaint application and gave directions as enumerated above. 4. Heard learned A.G.P. and counsel. 5. Mr.Jadhav, learned A.G.P., would point out that the directions of the Industrial Court are substantially complied with inasmuch as four (4) of the workers at serial Nos.l to 4 were given benefit of permanency since 1984 though the direction was to grant such benefit w.e.f. 4 17.3.1987. He would submit that all of the workers have been regularly appointed and are brought on C.R.T. The only disputed question is in respect of the date from which the benefit of permanency can be given to the said workers. That question also is of relevance only in respect of some of the workers out of 14 workers. The learned A.G.P. points out that one of the worker by name Hari Deoram Dokhe, is no more. So also, another worker by name Mahadeo Jejurkar has been superannuated. 6. What transpires from the record is that the petitioners decided to comply with the directions of the Industrial Court and, therefore,the workers were brought on C.R.T. It appears that they were being considered for benefit of permanency from the date of acquiring eligibility. For example, those who were appointed as mechanic or Cadastral surveyor, were required to satisfy the eligibility criteria. They could not be appointed on regular basis without acquiring necessary eligibility. The learned A.G.P. would submit that each of the 5 proposal for grant of permanency benefits to the workers is being submitted to the Government and is being cleared as and when the worker is found eligible to get appointment on the post. Needless to say, the only rectification in the direction of the Industrial Court, which is required to be made due to the change in the circumstances is regarding the date of permanency. The date of permanency can not be as directed by the Industrial Court inasmuch as the regularisation of the service on a particular post will depend upon satisfaction of the needed criteria. A casual labour can not be suddenly appointed on the post of mechanic unless he possesses requisite qualification like diploma in mechanic or required certificate as per the Rules. Having regard to these aspects, I deem it proper to partly allow the petition and delete the direction regarding date of permanency benefits. It is just and proper to modify such direction and clarify that the benefits of permanency will be available to the concerned workers from the date the eligibility criteria is satisfied and the same shall be granted accordingly. 6 7. In the result, the petition is partly allowed. The direction issued by the Industrial Court that all the 14 workers shall be given permanency benefit w.e.f. 17.3.1987 and the arrears shall be payable from such date be deemed as deleted. The relevant sentence in the final order of the Industrial Court be substituted as follows : "These 14 workers be given benefits of permanency with effect from their respective dates of becoming eligible for appointment to the post and from the date they are taken on C.R.T. The arrears also shall be payable accordingly, if not already paid." With this modification in the final order of the Industrial Court, the petition is disposed of. No costs. (V.R.KINGAONKAR,J.) asp/office/wp145491 7