( 1 ) IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE OF BOMBAY, BENCH AT AURANGABAD WRIT PETITION NO. 1888 OF 1996 1. Vice Chancellor, Mahatma Phule Krishi Vidyapeeth, Rahuri, Dist. Ahmednagar. 2. The Principal, Agricultural College, Dhule. PETITIONERS VERSUS 1. Ashok Khandu Saidane, C/o Shri Adhar Punju Mali, Galli No. 14, Subhash Nagar, Dhule. 2. Shri R.A. Ghadekar, Member, Industrial Court, Nasik. 3. State of Maharashtra through the Secretary, Agricultural and Cooperation Department, Mantralaya, Mumbai. 4. Union of India. 5. Labour Court, Dhule. RESPONDENTS WITH WRIT PETITION NO. 1889 OF 1996 1. The Vice Chancellor, Mahatma Phule Krishi Vidyapeeth, Rahuri, Dist. Ahmednagar. 2. The Principal, Agricultural College, Dhule. PETITIONERS VERSUS 1. Rumal Chindha More (Naik) Since deceased, by L.Rs. ( 2 ) 1A. Sulkanbai wd/o Rumal More (Naik), R/o C/o Professor Sharad Patil’s Farm House, Near Motha Pool, Dhule, Dist. Dhule (Died as per Bailiff’s report) 1B. Devidas s/o Rama More (Naik), R/o Behind Govt. Politechnic, Bhilati, Deopur, Dhule, District Dhule. 1C. Mohan s/o Ghansham More (Naik), R/o Old Bhilati Dhule, Dist. Dhule. 2. Shri R.A. Ghadekar, Member, Industrial Court, Nasik. 3. State of Maharashtra, through Secretary, Agricultural and Cooperation Department, Mantralaya, Mumbai. 4. Union of India. 5. Labour Court, Dhule. RESPONDENTS ..... Mr. Pradeep Shahane, advocate for the petitioners in both writ petitions. Mr. N.B. Borade, AGP for the respondent/State. Mr. S.K. Shelke, advocate holding for Mr. A.S. Shelke, advocate for respondent No.1 in both writ petitions. ..... [CORAM : V.R. KINGAONKAR, J.] [DATE : 6th January, 2010] ORAL JUDGEMENT : 1. Both these petitions are being decided together in as much as identical questions are involved therein. ( 3 ) 2. The deceased respondent No. 1 in writ petition No. 1889/1996 and respondent in writ petition No. 1888/1996 were working on daily wages. They were employed by the petitioners for the work of plantation and cultivation of the plants, fruit bearing trees, etc. They filed complaint applications under section 28 of the Maharashtra Recognition of Trade Unions and Prevention of Unfair Labour Practices Act, 1971 (for short, “MRTU and PULP Act”). According to them, since ten years or so, they were continued as daily wagers and were deprived of benefits and privileges available to permanent workmen. That was unfair labour practice as envisaged vide Item-6 of Schedule-IV of the MRTU and PULP Act, 1971. Consequently, they sought direction to restrain the petitioners from indulging in unfair labour practices and to absorb them in regular service with benefit of permanency. The case of the petitioners was that the said respondents were only casual workers and could not have claimed any permanent employment. It was contended that there was no employment available for continuous period of twelve months and it was only ( 4 ) seasonal work assigned to the said respondents on basis of availability of work. It was further contended that there were no vacant posts available for employment of the said respondents. 3. The Industrial Court allowed both the complaints and directed that the said respondents shall be paid wages on par with the other workmen who were serving on permanent establishment alongwith all benefits and privileges. The Industrial Court directed that the difference of such wages shall be paid to the said respondents for period between date of filing of the complaints. 4. Heard learned counsel. 5. There is subsequent development in so far as writ petition No. 1889/1996 is concerned. Respondent Rumal Chindha More died during pendency of the writ petition in the year 2000 and his legal representatives have been substituted in his stead. The deceased respondent – Rumal was not made permanent employee till ( 5 ) his death. His legal representatives are entitled to claim only difference of wages, if any, as would be payable to him under the law. There is no question of granting of benefit of permanency to deceased Rumal Chindha More. 6. So far as respondent Ashok Saindane is concerned, it is stated by learned counsel Mr. Shahane that he has been made permanent employee w.e.f. 02-11-2004. He has placed on record copy of the relevant office order. Therefore, part of his grievance is satisfied. The only question is whether both the said respondents are entitled to receive the benefits of permanency under the awards in question. The Industrial Court directed that they shall be paid all the benefits and privileges to which the workmen on permanent establishment are entitled. The dispute relates to directions and payment of difference of wages on basis of calculation which is to be made by notionally treating the said respondents as permanent employees. 7. It appears that there were large number of such ( 6 ) employees who were aggrieved due to the practice followed by the petitioners in respect of continuation of employment on daily wages without giving benefit of regular employment or grant of permanency. Such large number of employees had filed complaints in the Industrial Courts. Their complaints were decided by the Industrial Court and the High Court also confirmed the awards rendered in their favour. The matters were taken to the Apex Court. The Apex Court in “Mahatma Phule Agricultural University and others v. Nashik Zilla Sheti Kamgar Union and others” 2001 III CLR 4, held that the status of permanency could not be granted once it was found that there were no permanent posts available. The Apex Court also held that the workmen who were not covered by the award were entitled to receive pay. The principle “equal pay to equal work” would apply. The relevant observations of the Apex Court may be reproduced as follows : “The complaint was against the Universities. The inaction on the part of the State ( 7 ) Government to create posts would not mean that an unfair labour practice had been committed by the Universities. The reasoning given by the High Court to conclude that the case was squarely covered by Item 6 of Schedule IV of the MRTU & PULP Act cannot be sustained at all and the impugned judgement has to be and is set aside. It is however clarified that the High Court was right in concluding that, as per the law laid down by this Court, status of permanency could not be granted.” 8. The present petitioners are covered by the dicta of the Apex Court in “Mahatma Phule Agricultural University and others” (supra). It goes without saying, therefore, that the respective respondents were not entitled to benefits and privileges to the workmen on permanent establishment were entitled. Therefore, such direction of the Industrial Court needs to be set aside. They would be, however, entitled to the payments which have been made to the other workers who were similarly ( 8 ) situated and have been granted benefit under the directions in judgment in case of “Mahatma Phule Agricultural University and others” (supra). In other words, the petitioners shall comply with the directions which are to be treated as integral part of this judgement. The legal representatives of the deceased respondent – Rumal will not be entitled, however, to claim any further benefits from date of his death onwards. 9. In the result, the petitions are partly allowed. The direction of the Industrial Court to give benefits and privileges to the concerned respondents on par with the workmen on permanent establishment and payment of the difference of such wages as shown in the final order is set aside. The petitioners shall, however, give monetary benefits in accordance with the directions of the Apex Court in case of “Mahatma Phule Agricultural University vs.Nashik Zilla Sheti Kamgar Union & others” (2001 III CLR 4), to the said respondents as per the claims which they could have ( 9 ) received likewise others who have been granted benefit vide the above dictum of the Apex Court, if they have not been already so paid. [ V.R. KINGAONKAR ] JUDGE NPJ/wp1888-1889-96