Writ Petition No. 1561 of 2000. Case: Sudhir R. Koli and Ors. Vs Maharashtra Pollution Control Board and Anr.. High Court of Bombay (India)

Case NumberWrit Petition No. 1561 of 2000
CounselFor Appellant: C.U. Singh, Adv., i/b., S. Udeshi and Co. and For Respondents: Rekha Panchal, Adv.
JudgesDr. D.Y. Chandrachud, J.
IssueIndustrial Disputes Act, 1947- Section 2; Maharashtra Recognition of Trade Unions and Prevention of Unfair Practices Act, 1972; Bombay Industrial Employment (Standing Orders) Rules, 1959
Citation2004 (5) BomCR 24, 2004 (3) MahLJ 925
Judgement DateJuly 01, 2004
CourtHigh Court of Bombay (India)

Judgment:

D.Y. Chandrachud, J.

  1. The Maharashtra Pollution Control Board has been constituted in pursuance of the provisions of the Water (Prevention and Control of Pollution) Act, 1974, in order to exercise the powers conferred upon it and perform the functions assigned to it by the Act. Sub-section (3) of Section 12 of the Act lays down that subject to such rules as may be made by the State Government, the Board may appoint such officers and employees as it considers necessary for the efficient performance of its functions. The Board is empowered by Sub-section (3A) of the same section to frame regulations for determining the method of recruitment and conditions of service, including the scales of pay of its officers and employees. The regulations have to be approved by the State Government before they can take effect.

  2. In the present case, the six petitioners before the Court were Data Entry Operators on fixed term contracts during diverse periods of time when computerization of the office of the Board was in its nascent stages. There is no dispute about the position that the regular procedure for recruitment was not followed when the petitioners came to be appointed on these fixed term contracts. There were no sanctioned posts as such of Data Entry Operators, no advertisements were issued before recruiting the petitioners and no requisition was submitted to any Employment Exchange calling for the names of eligible candidates. The petitioners moved the Industrial Court on 28th August 1999 seeking the status of permanent workmen upon the completion of 240 days' service and for consequential benefits. The petitioners claimed that before they were given the last break in service in July 1999, they had been engaged since January 1997, in the case of the first three petitioners and since May, August and November 1997 for the rest. According to the petitioners, they had been engaged on a contract basis under a sham and bogus arrangement and were given artificial breaks in service after the expiry of each fixed term. The petitioners, however, stated that they had been in the employment of the Board right from 1994.

  3. In the reply that was filed by the respondent-Board, the claim by the petitioners to the conferment of permanency was disputed. The Board disputed that the petitioners were engaged since 1994. According to the Board, there were no sanctioned posts of Data Entry Operators on its establishment and the petitioners were taken on a contract basis in consultation with the National Informatics Centre (NIC), Mumbai, in order to co-ordinate computer related activities, to train the staff, to liaise with the Hardware Maintenance Agency and to interact with NIC for software development for the Board purely on a contract basis. Then again, it was stated in July 1999, the petitioners had been appointed temporarily in order to train newly appointed staff and that the Board was, therefore, under no obligation to confer permanency upon them.

  4. The Industrial Court was approached in a complaint of unfair labour practices, the allegation being that the respondent-Board was in breach of the provisions of Items 5, 6 and 9 of Schedule IV of the Maharashtra Recognition of Trade Unions and Prevention of Unfair Labour Practices Act, 1971. Item 5 is "To show favouritism or partiality to one set of workers, regardless of merits". Item 6 is 'To employ employees as 'badlis', casuals or temporaries and to continue them as such for years, with the object of depriving them of the status and privileges of permanent employees". Under Item 9, the unfair labour practice lies in a "Failure to implement award, settlement or agreement". Evidence was adduced before the Industrial Court both on behalf of the petitioners and on behalf of the respondent-Board.

  5. By a...

To continue reading

Request your trial

VLEX uses login cookies to provide you with a better browsing experience. If you click on 'Accept' or continue browsing this site we consider that you accept our cookie policy. ACCEPT