The State of Maharashtra v. Sunita Shankarrao Vhatkar

1) These petitions challenge the order dated 15 March 2013 passed by the Member, Industrial Court, Kolhapur allowing the Complaints filed by Respondents and directing grant of permanency to them from the date of the order of the Industrial Court with consequential benefits.

2) Government of Maharashtra, Directorate of Medical Education and Research issued Government Resolution dated 8 May 2003 sanctioning staffing pattern for Rajshri Chhatrapati Shahu Maharaj Government Medical College, Kolhapur (the College), under which 274 regular posts and 113 contract posts were sanctioned. Those 113 contract posts included academic posts, technical posts and administrative posts. It appears that by subsequent GR dated 4 June 2003, the Government constituted Committee of five members for conducting selection process for filling up the contractual posts created for various Government Medical Colleges including including the College, Kolhapur.

3) Though 113 contract posts were sanctioned by the Government of Maharashtra on 8 May 2003, it appears that the College undertook the exercise of making contractual appointments in technical categories in January 2003 itself. It is the case of the Respondent-employees that they had registered their names with the Regional Employment Exchange, the College sent requisition to the Employment Exchange and names of the Respondents were accordingly sponsored. It is the case of the Respondents that a Selection Committee was constituted and they were subjected to selection process before being selected for appointment. After their selection, appointment orders were issued in January 2003. It would relevant to refer to the appointment order issued to Smt. Sunita Shankarrao Vhatkar (Respondent in WP-1140/2017). She was appointed on contract basis as Lab Assistant for a period of 90 days on consolidated pay of Rs.3,000/- per month. Her appointment was extended by order dated 3 May 2003 for further period of 90 days. The last appointment order was issued in her favour on 20 January 2004 appointing her from 10 January 2004 to 9 December 2004.

4) In the above factual background, the Respondents approached the Industrial Court, Kolhapur seeking the benefit of permanency on completion of 240 days of service. They also filed applications for grant of interim relief to restrain the Petitioners from discontinuing their services. It appears that the Industrial Court passed orders dated 6 November 2004 directing the Petitioners to maintain statusquo in respect of the employment of the Respondents. This is how they continued in service of the College. The Complaints have been allowed by common judgment and order dated 15 March 2013 by the Industrial Court, Kolhapur directing grant of permanency from the date of the order of the Industrial Court. The benefit of permanency is granted on account of completion of 240 days of service. The order dated 15 March 2013 passed by the Industrial Court is subject matter of challenge in the present petition. By order dated 2 March 2017, the petitions are admitted and this Court stayed the judgment and order dated 15 March 2013 but continued the order of status-quo during pendency of the present petitions. This is how Respondents continue to be in service of the College till date.

5) I have heard Ms. Nimbalkar, the learned counsel appearing fo the Petitioners and Mr. Kasar the learned counsel appearing for the Respondent-employees.

6) By now it is well settled position of law by judgment of Division Bench of this Court in Municipal Council Tirora V/s. Tulsidas that permanency cannot be granted in the services of the Government and its Instrumentalities in accordance with Clause 4(C) of the Model Standing Orders and that the Industrial Adjudicator cannot indirectly create posts on establishment of the Government and its Instrumentalities by issuing order for permanency. This Court held in Municipal Council, Tirora in paras-19, 20 and 21 as under:

19. In this reference, the position emerging before us is similar. There is no conflict between the provisions of M.S.O. 4C and the provisions of the section 76 of the 1965 Act. In the event of the appointment having been made validly, it may be possible to invoke the provisions Cl. 4C of M.S.O.A. view to the contrary would result in regularizing/validating a void act. Cl. 4C neither permits nor contemplates the same. As held in the above judgments, if the appointment is not made in accordance with the constitutional scheme, it is void ab initio and, therefore, there can be no claim to its regularization or for grant of permanency in any manner. This is all the more so as Cl. 32 of the M.S.O. clarifies that the Standing Orders are not to operate in derogation of any other law i.e. section 76 of 1965 Act. Definitely any interpretation of Clause 4C conducive to defeating the Constitutional mandate is unwarranted. Violation of Clause 4C of the MSO may tantamount to an 1 2016 (6) Mh.L.J. 867 unfair labour practice under item 9 of Sch. IV of the 1971 Act but unless and until, other additional factors are proved on record, finding of indulgence in an unfair labour practice under Item 6 of Sch. IV thereof cannot be reached. As explained by the Hon'ble Apex Court in case of Maharashtra SRTC v. Casteribe Rajya Parivahan Karmchari Sanghatana, (supra), existence of a legal vacancy must be established and as discussed above, the power to recruit with the employer must also be demonstrated. In absence thereof, workman cannot succeed in proving the commission of unfair labour practice under Item 6 by the employer. These two ingredients, therefore, also must be established when benefit of Cl. 4C is being claimed. Unless availability of a vacancy is shown or then power with the employer to create the post and to fill it is brought on record, mere continuation of 240 days cannot and does not enable the workman to claim permanency by taking recourse to Cl. 4C read with Item 9 of Sch. IV of 1971 Act. Clause 4C does not employ word “regularisation” but then it is implicit in it as no “permanency” is possible without it. Conversely, it follows that when a statutory provision like section 76 disables the employer either from creating or filling in the posts, such a claim cannot be sustained. This also nullifies the reliance upon the judgment of learned Single Judge in case of Maharashtra Lok Kamgar Sanghatana v. Ballarpur Industries Limited (supra) where the employer was a private Company not subjected to such regulatory measures by any Statute and enjoyed full freedom to create the posts and to recruit. One of us (B.P. Dharmadhikari, J.) is party to the judgment of this Court in Raymond UCO Denim Private Ltd. v. Praful Warade (supra) which again needs to be distinguished for the same reasons. The judgment of learned Single Judge in case of Indian Tobacco Company Ltd. v. Industrial Court (supra), judgment of Hon'ble Apex Court affirming it or then judgment of Hon'ble Apex Court reported at Western India Match Company Ltd. and Workmen are all considered therein and are distinguishable as the same do not pertain to the province of public employment or consider inherent Constitutional restraints (the suprema lex-see Mahendra L. Jain v. Indore Development Authority (supra) and Cl. 32 of the MSO. For same reasons, law laid down by the Full Bench judgment of this Court in 2007 (1) Mh.L.J. (F.B.) 754: 2007 (1) CLR 460 Gangadhar Balgopal Nair v. Voltas Limited does not advance the cause of workmen. The Division Bench of this Court in May and Baker Ltd. v. Kishore Jaikishandas Icchaporia (supra) while construing section 10A(3) held that the expression “other law” would not refer to the Model Standing Orders or the Certified Standing Orders since they are laws made under the provisions of Parent Act itself and not under any other law. The Model Standing Orders and Certified Standing Orders, held the Division Bench, “are laws no doubt but they are laws made under the provisions of the Act”. They were held not to be provisions under any other law. This discussion therefore shows how these words “in derogation of any law for the time being in force” in Cl. 32 of MSO need to be understood and does not help Adv. Jaiswal or Adv. Khan.

20. In Vice-chancellor, Lucknow University v. Akhilesh Kumar Khare (supra) relied upon by Adv. Parihar, Hon'ble Apex Court follows its Constitution Bench in Umadevi (III) and while rejecting relief of regularization to the daily wagers who were engaged in public employment without proper procedure, grants them compensation of ? 4 Lakh each by way of compassion. This judgment does not consider any welfare labour legislation and, therefore, cannot provide direct answer to the reference made. Judgment of this Court taking similar view in the light of 1971 Act in the case of Punjabrao Krishi Vidyapeeth, Akola v. General Secretary, Krishi Vidyapeeth Kamgar Union (supra) is already considered above. The Division Bench of this Court in State of Maharashtra v. Pandurang Sitaram Jadhav (supra) finds that the respondents before it were employed as daily wagers in the establishment of the Government Milk Dairy for a longer period of 12 to 20 years. There were no sanctioned posts and vacancies in existence in the concerned department. Respondents failed to demonstrate that their appointments were made in accordance with the procedure prescribed for selection. The Division Bench finds it wholly unjust to direct the appellant State Government to grant permanency to the respondents. It points out that the provisions of Model Standing Orders are subject to the Rules regulating selection and appointment so also subject to the constitutional scheme of public employment. Respondents daily wagers are declared to possess no legal right to claim permanency. Order passed by the learned Single Judge to the contrary have been quashed. State Government is held obliged to make appointments in adherence to the constitutional scheme of Public employment. Respondents Daily Wagers appointed without following the prescribed procedure for selection by passing public participation did not acquire any legal right to claim permanency. It is apparent that no inconsistency exists and cannot be worked out in State of Maharashtra v. Pandurang Sitaram Jadhav as also Pune Municipal Corporation v. Dhananjay Prabhakar Gokhale(supra) on one hand and Ballarpur Industries Limited v. Maharashtra Lok Kamgar Sanghatana (supra) on the other hand. Status of employer, nature of employment and inherent Constitutional limitation on public employer or absence of such fetters on any private employer or absolute freedom available to it to create post/s and recruit, are some of the distinguishing features which prohibit this exercise.

21. Thus, in the light of this discussion, it follows that in absence of vacant sanctioned posts with the Municipal Council, a workman who has put in continuous service of 240 days or more in span of 12 months, cannot invoke Clause 4C of the MSO to claim either permanency or regularization. We accordingly answer the question referred. Registry to place the writ petitions before the learned Single Judge as per roaster assignment for further consideration. (emphasis added)

7) In view of law expounded by Division Bench of this Court in Municipal Council, Tirora permanency cannot be granted to Respondent-employees merely on the strength of completion of 240 days of service.

8) However, it appears that Petitioners themselves were considering regularizing services of employees working on contract basis in the college. As observed above, while sanctioning the staffing pattern vide G.R. dated 8 May 2003, the State Government bifurcated the posts on the establishment of the College into 274 regular posts and 113 contract posts, in addition to 227 posts to be utilized on deputation from the establishment of the Directorate of Health Services. Why such bifurcation was resorted to, is difficult to comprehend at this stage, particularly considering the fact that 113 contract posts sanctioned for the College are continued for over 21 long years by now. It appears that against those 113 contract posts, 92 employees still continue to work in the College. This appears to be the reason why the State Government considered converting those contract posts into regular posts and accordingly called for necessary information from the Directorate by letter dated 6 January 2009 which reads thus: शासन निनर्णय क्र. एमई डी १००२/सी. आर. २१७/२००२/शिशक्षर्ण -१, नि. ८ मे, २००३ अन्वये शासकीय वैद्यकीय महानिवद्यालय कोल्हापूरसाठी एक ू र्ण १०३ क ं त्राटी कमचाऱ्यांची प े निनमार्ण करण्यात आली आहेत. ही प े निनयनिमत आस्थापनेवरील नसून क ं त्राटी स्वरूपाची आहेत. या प ांवर काम करर्णाऱ्या कमचाऱ्यांना या शासन निनर्णयांमध्ये नमू क े लेले एकनित्रत वेतन ेण्यात येते. स र कमचारी सातत्याने त्यांना निनयनिमत करण्यासं र्भाात निनवे ने ेत आहेत, हे आपर्णास निवधीत आहेच. त्यांच्या निनवे नाच्या अनुषंगाने शासनस्तरावर प्रस्ताव तपासण्यात येत आहे. क ं त्राटी प े निनयनिमत स्वरूपात र्भारवयाची झाल्यास प्रथमतः या महानिवद्यालयात तिततक्या प्रमार्णात प निनर्मिमती करावी लागेल. सबब शासनस्तरावर प्रस्तावावर निवचारनिवनिनमय करण्याच्या दृष्टीने खालील मुद्द्यांवरील मानिहती तात्काळ सा र करावी. १) सव क ं त्राटी पध् तीने र्भारण्यात आलेले सवच्या सव म्हर्णजे १०३ कमचारी सद्यःस्थिस्थतीत कायरत आहेत काय २) ही प े निनयनिमत करावयाची झाल्यास निकमान वेतनश्रेर्णीमध्ये अं ाजे या प ांसाठी वार्मिषक खच निकती येईल ३) आता क ं त्राटी कमचाऱ्यांवर वेतनापोटी होर्णारा वार्मिषक खच निकती, म्हर्णजेच नेमका निकती अतितरिरका बोजा शासनावर पडेल ४) या कमचान्यांना सामावून घेण्यास आपल्या आस्थापनेवर निकती रिरक्त प े उपलब्ध आहेत व त्यांचे समायोजन कशा प्रकारे होऊ शक े ल, याबाबतचा तपशील ५) २००३ च्या शासन निनर्णयामध्ये करार पध् तीने र्भारावयाची ही प े निवनिहत पध् तीने र्भारावीत असे आ ेशिशत क े ले आहे. प्रत्यक्षात या सव १०३ कमचाऱ्यांना निनयुक्ती ेताना कोर्णती निवनिहत पध् त अवलंनिबली याचा स्पष्ट तपशील द्यावा. उपरोक्त मानिहती शासनास उलट टपाली कळनिवण्यात यावी, ही निवनंती.

9) It appears that the requisite information was provided by the College to the Directorate by letter dated 21 January 2009 which reads thus: प्रतित, मा. संचालक, वैद्यकीय शिशक्षर्ण व संशोधन, मुंबई. निवषय:- क ं त्राटी पध् तीवरील वग- ३ व ४ च्या कमचाऱ्यांनी सेवा निनयनिमत करण्याबाबत. सं र्भा:-१) शासनाचे पत्र क्र. डीएमआर २००५/प्र.क्र.८०/०५/वैसेवा-४, वैद्यकीय शिशक्षर्ण व औषधीद्रव्ये निवर्भााग मंत्रालय, मुंबई ३२, नि. ६/१/०९ २) मुख्य प्रशासकीय अतिधकारी संचालनालय यांचा नि. २०/०१/०९ चा ूरध्वनी सं ेश मा. महो य, आपल्या उपरोक्त ूरध्वनी सं ेशानुसार क ं त्राटी पध् तीवरील वग ३ व ४ कमचाऱ्यांना सेवा निनयनिमत करण्याबाबतची मानिहती खालीलप्रमार्णे सा र करीत आहे. १) क ं त्राटी पध् तीने मंजूर असलेल्या १०३ प ांपैकी सद्यः स्थिस्थतीत ९२ कमचारी कायरत आहेत. २) क ं त्राटी पध् त निनयनिमत करावयाची झाल्यास निकमान वेतनश्रेर्णी प्रमार्णे अं ाजे वार्मिषक खच रुपये १२६३५४१२/- इतका होईल. ३) सध:स्थिस्थतीत क ं त्राटी कमचाऱ्यांना वेतनापोटी वार्मिषक खच रुपये ३९९०६००/- इतका आहे. म्हर्णजेच नेमका रुपये ८६४४८१२/- इतका अतितरीक्त बोजा शासनावर पडेल. ४) क ं त्राटी कमचाऱ्यांना सामावून घेण्यास संस्थेच्या त्यास्थापनेवर खालीलप्रमार्णे रिरक्त प े उपलब्ध आहेत. अ.क्र १ करारपध् तीचे प नाम २ प संख्या ३ निनयनिमत आस्थापनाची प े मंजूर प े ४ र्भारलेली प े ५ रिरक्त प े ६ वग ३ ०१ पशु वैद्यकीय अतिधकारी ०१ ०० ०२ ०० ०२ कायालयीन अतिधक्षक ०२ ०२ ०२ ०२ ०३ निनम्नश्रेर्णी लघुलेखक १० ०४ ०३ ०१ ०४ वरीष्ठ लिलपीक. ०३ १० १० ०० ०५ र्भाांडारपाल ०९ ०३ ०३ ०० ०६ क.लिलनिपक ०९ १० ०१ ०९ ०७ सहायक ग्रंथपाल ०२ ०० ०० ०० ०८ प्रयोगशाळा तंत्रज्ञ २५ १२ ०७ ०५ ०९ प्रयोगशाळा सहायक ११ ३४ १७ १७ १० वैद्यकीय सा. कायकता ०८ ०३ ०३ ०० ११ वायरमन ०१ ०० ०० ०० १२ ुरध्वनी चालक ०३ ०० ०० ०० १३ वाहन चालक ०३ ०१ ०१ ०० एक ु र्ण ८७ ७९ ४७ ३२ वग - ४ ०१ प्रयोगशाळा परिरचर ०८ १४ १३ ०१ ०२ पहारेकरी / माळी ०८ ०० ०० ०० एक ु र्ण १६ १४ १३ ०१ एक ु र्ण-(वग -३ + ४) १०३ ९३ ६० ३३ वर नमू क े लल्या निववरर्णपत्रातील रकाना क्र. ६ मध्ये रिरक्त प ाचर क ं त्राटी पध् तीवरील तेवढ्याच कमचाऱ्यांना समायोजिजत करता येऊ शक े ल उवरिरत क ं त्राटी कमचाऱ्यांना समायोजिजत करण्यासाठी नवीन प े निनमार्ण करावी लागतील. ५) क ं त्राटी पद्धतीने वग ३ व ४ कमचाऱ्यांना निनयुक्ती ेताना स्थानिनक वतमानपत्रात जानिहरात ेण्यात आली व त्याचप्रमार्णे सेवायोजन कायालयांकडून या ी मागवून त्या सव उमे वारांची लेखी परीक्षा घेण्यात आली व तोंडी मुलाखाती घेऊन उमे वारांची निनवड करण्यात आली आहे. तथानिप प्रयोगशाळा तंत्रयांची ४ प े, कनिनष्ट जिलनिपक २ प े, सहायक ग्रंथपाल २ प े, पहारेकरी ४ प े, प्रयोगशाळा परिरचर ०१ अशा एक ू र्ण १३ प ावर उमे वारांकडून प्राप्त झालेल्या थेट अजावर गठीत क े लेल्या सनिमतीच्या शिशफारशीनुसार मुलकात घेऊन निनयुक्त्या ेण्यात आलेल्या आहेत. आपला निवश्वासू, अतिधष्ठता, राजर्मिष छत्रपती शाहू महाराज, शासकीय वैद्यकीय महानिवद्यालय, कोल्हापूर 10) In para-5 of the letter dated 21 January 2009 the College has specifically confirmed the fact that while appointing the Respondents, requisition was send to the Employment Exchange, candidates were subjected to written tests, as well as, oral interviews and thereafter they were appointed on contract basis.

11) It thus appears that the proposal for converting 113 contract posts into a regular posts was under consideration of the State Government. However, it is unknown at this stage as to whether the said proposal was taken to its logical end.

12) In the meantime, it appears that the contract employees who were being paid consolidated wages were brought on pay scales by issuance of the G.R. dated 23 January 2014. By the said G.R. it was directed that the contract employees shall be placed in the minimum of the pay scale plus grade pay plus dearness allowance. Accordingly, Smt. Sunita Vhatkar was granted pay fixation by the College by placing her in the pay scale of the post of Lab Technician.

13) Considering the above position, since the State Government itself was considering proposal for converting 113 contract posts into regular one, in my view the case of Respondentemployees needs to be considered for grant of regularisation by the State Government. Therefore, though the order passed by the Industrial Court directing permanency on account of completion of 240 days of service cannot be sustained, the Respondent-employees cannot be denied opportunity of having their cases considered for regularisation in terms of the proposal mulled by the State Government in the year 2009. Infact in Hari Nadan Prasad V/s. Employer I/R to Management of FCI & Anr.[2] the Supreme Court has held that