1 IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY BENCH AT AURANGABAD WRIT PETITION NO. 1045 OF 1991 1) The State of Maharashtra Public Works Department, Mantralaya, Bombay-32 through its Secretary. 2) The Public Works Department, Sangamner, Dist. Ahmednagar through its Executive Engineer ... Petitioners. Versus 1) Ahmednagar Zilla Raste, Imarati Va Patbhandare Kamgar Union, ‘Shramik’ Tilak Road, Ahmednagar. 2) Member, Industrial Court, Ahmednagar. ... Respondents. -------- Smt. A.V. Ghondhlekar,Assistant Government Pleader, for Petitioners. Shri.S.K. Shelke, Advocate for the Respondent. -------- CORAM: S.S. SHINDE, J. DATE: 07th JANUARY, 2010 ORAL JUDGMENT : 2 1) This Writ Petition is filed challenging the judgment and order dated 20-02-1990 passed by the Member, Industrial Court, Ahmednagar in complaint (ULP) No. 63 of 1987. Brief facts of the case are as under :- 2) The respondent herein has filed complaint (ULP) No. 63 of 1987 before the Member, Industrial Court, Ahmednagar alleging therein that, the workers working under the respondent No. 1 are members of the complainant union. The respondent No. 2 is working under the Public Works Department. The Petitioner No. 2 has employed 400 to 500 workers and out of said workers 200-300 workers on daily wages. The permanent workers are getting monthly salary of Rs. 700/- in the beginning. The work being done by the permanent workers and the daily rated is the same. However, daily rated workers are being given less wages compare to monthly salary of the permanent workers. 3) The petitioner herein filed written 3 statement at Exhibit C-6 and denied that the nature of work of the daily rated workers and permanent workers is same. The Industrial Court framed necessary issues for its determination /consideration and came to the conclusion that, the petitioners herein have committed unfair labour practice under item under the Maharashtra Recognition of Trade Union and Prevention of Unfair Labour Practice Act, 1971, by not giving permanency to some of the workers. The Industrial Court directed the petitioners to give all the benefit of permanency to the respondents and also arrears towards salary and allowances payable to these workers on giving permanency with effect from 17-03-1987. Being aggrieved by the judgment and order of the Industrial Court, this Writ Petition is filed by the State. 4) When this Writ Petition was heard for admission, this Court issued Rule. However, 4 interim relief was refused. During the pendency of this Writ Petition all the members of the respondent No. 1 are made permanent. The learned AGP appearing for the State invited my attention grounds given in the petition and submitted that, since the members of the respondent No. 1 were working on daily wages , therefore, they were not eligible to be absorbed as permanent employee, they were not entitle for the permanency. The learned AGP invited my attention to the other grounds taken in the petition and submitted that, the Writ Petition deserves to be allowed. 5) The learned counsel appearing for the respondent relied on the judgment of this Court in Writ Petition No. 2826 of 1990 and also in Writ Petition No. 2827 of 1990 and submitted that, in identical set of facts, this Court has dismissed the Writ Petitions on 08th of February, 2007. The some and substance of the arguments advanced on behalf of the respondent No. 1 is 5 that, since the identical Writ Petitions mentioned above have been dismissed by this Court, this petition may not be entertained. The learned counsel appearing for respondent tendered copy of the judgment delivered by this Court in afore said Writ Petitions on 8th of February, 2007 for perusal. On the perusal of the said judgment would show that the facts of this case are identical with the facts of Writ Petition Nos. 2826 of 1990 and 2827 of 1990. The above mentioned Writ Petitions are disposed of by this Court relying on the Writ Petition No. 950 of 1990 and 2475 of 1990, in which issue in respect of similarly situated employees was involved and the said Writ Petitions were rejected by this Court by order dated 28th August, 1987 and thereby confirmed the order of the Industrial Court. It is common ground that the present petition was admitted and no stay was granted as regards to the impugned order passed by the Industrial Court. It is also admitted position 6 that, during the pendency of this Writ Petition the employees of the Respondent No. 1 Union in whose favour impugned judgment and order is passed have been made permanent in terms of said order of the Industrial Court and said employees have also be given benefit of permanency. Since this Court has already dismissed Writ Petition No. 2826 of 1990 and 2827 of 1990 in identical set of facts, and same position is not disputed by the learned AGP appearing for the State, I am of the considered view that, this Writ Petition deserves to be dismissed and accordingly Rule stands discharged. 6) Writ Petition stands dismissed. (S.S.SHINDE, J.) sdm/wp1045.90 7 8