(1) IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY, AURANGABAD BENCH, AT AURANGABAD. WRIT PETITION NO. 437 OF 1991 Sarva Shramik Sangh, "Shramik", Tilak Road, Ahmednagar (Through the Secretary). .. Petitioner. versus 1. Rayat Shikshan Sanstha, Karmaveer Bhaurao Patil Parisar, Satara, Through the President. 2. The Principal, R.B. Narayanrao Borawake College, Shrirampur, District : Ahmednagar. .. Respondents. .......................... Mr. S.K. Shelke, Advocate, for the petitioner. Mr. R.L. Kute, Advocate, holding for Mr. R.N. Dhorde, Advocate, for respondent nos.1 and 2. ************** (2) W I T H WRIT PETITION NO. 1943 OF 1991 1. Rayat Shikshan Sanstha, Karmavir Bhaurao Patil Parisar, Satara, Dist. Satara, through its President. 2. The Principal, R.B. Narayanrao Borawake College, Shrirampur, Dist. Ahmednagar. .. Petitioners. versus 1. Sarva Shramik Sangh, Tilak Road, Ahmednagar, through its Secretary. .. Respondent 2. The Member, .. Petition already Industrial Court, dismissed as against Ahmednagar. respondent no.2. .......................... Mr. R.L. Kute, Advocate, holding for Miss. Charu Khandeshe, Advocate, for the petitioners. (3) Mr. S.K. Shelke, Advocate, for respondent no.1. Petition already dismissed as against respondent no.2. ************* CORAM : B.R. GAVAI, J. DATE : 3RD NOVEMBER 2009. ORAL JUDGMENT : 1. Both these petitions challenge the judgment and award passed by the learned Member of the Industrial Court, Ahmednagar, dated 21st September 1990, in Complaint (ULP) No. 592/1988. 2. Writ Petition No. 437/1991 is filed by the original complainant, whereas Writ Petition No. 1943/1991 is filed by the original respondent. 3. It was the case of the complainant, that the employees mentioned in Scheduled "A" of the complaint (For short, "the said employees") were working with the respondent no.2 college. It was further case of the complainant, that though the said employees were working with the college for 3 to 4 years, they were not given the benefit of permanency. It was further contention of the complainant, that the said employees were paid at the rate of Rs. 10/- per day, which was less than (4) what is prescribed as per notification issued under the Mininum Wages Act. 4. The complaint was resisted by the respondents in the complaint. It was submitted that the work of plantation was carried out under the scheme "earn and learn", whereas students studying in the college were supposed to water the trees and the money earned thereunder was to be utilized towards their education. It was submitted by them, that only when the students were not available, the services of the persons on whose behalf the complaint was made, were utilized. It was submitted that the work was provided only on some days in a year and not throughout the year. 5. The complaint was partly allowed. The Industrial Court held that the said employees were kept on casual basis only to deprive them the benefits of permanency. However, instead of permanency, the Industrial Court directed to pay compensation to each of the employees at the rate of Rs. 1000/-. It was further directed that the difference of wages already paid and the one required to be paid as per the notification issued under the Minimum Wages Act, should also be paid. The employer, so also, the complainant are aggrieved by the said order. Hence, the present petition. 6. Mr. S.K. Shelke, learned Counsel appearing for the original complainant, submits that the Industrial Court having come to a finding, (5) that the employees were being deprived the benefit of permanency, ought to have allowed the complaint in entirety and granted them status of permanency. 7. Mr. R.L. Kute, learned Counsel appearing on behalf of the original respondent, submits that the Industrial Court having found that the work was of a temporary nature, has erroneously come to a finding that the employees were deprived the benefit of permanency. He, therefore, submits that the Industrial Court has erred in partly allowing the complaint. 8. From the perusal of the judgment, it would be clear that the learned Member of the Industrial Court has itself found that the work was of a temporary nature. It was found that the employees were engaged for watering the trees. However, it was found that the work of watering the trees was not of a permanent nature and that the employees were engaged as and when their services were required. In view of this finding, I am of the considered view that the learned Member of the Industrial Court has erroneously come to a finding that the employer has indulged into unfair labour practice covered under Item 6 of Scheduled IV of the Maharashtra Recognition of Trade Union and Prevention of Unfair Labour Practices Act, 1971. In that view of the matter, I do not find any merit in the petition filed by the original complainant. 9. In so far as Writ Petition No. 1943/1991 filed by the original (6) respondent is concerned, as already held herein above, I find that the learned Member of the Industrial Court has grossly erred in holding that the employer had indulged into an unfair labour practice covered under Item 9 of Scheduled IV of the Maharashtra Recognition of Trade Union and Prevention of Unfair Labour Practices Act, 1971. In that view of the matter, the order, in so far as it directs payment of Rs. 1000/-, in lieu of grant of permanency, is not sustainable. The direction in this respect will have to be quashed and set aside. 10. In so far as second direction regarding payment to the employees, as per the notification issued under the Minimum Wages Act is concerned, it is the duty of every employer to make payment to the employees in accordance with the notification issued by the competent authority. The direction given by the Industrial Court, in this respect, in my view, requires no interference. The same is, therefore, maintained. 11. Hence, I pass the following order : (i) Writ Petition No. 437/1991, filed by the original complainant, is dismissed. Rule therein is discharged. (ii) Writ Petition No. 1943/1991, filed by the original respondent, is partly allowed. The impugned order, in so far as it directs payment of Rs. 1000/- to each of the employees, in lieu of grant of permanency, is quashed and set aside. However, it is directed that if the payment, on (7) account of difference in wages payable as per the notification issued under the Minimum Wages Act and the amount already paid to the employees, is not already made, the same shall be paid to the said employees, within a period of three months from today. Rule, in Writ Petition No. 1943/1991, is made absolute in the aforesaid terms. (iii) There shall be no order as to costs. ( B.R. GAVAI ) JUDGE ......................... bgp/wp437