MAHATMA PHULE AGRICULTURAL UNIVERSITY AND ORS. versus NASIK ZILLA SHETH KAMGAR UNION AND ORS.

Citation: [2001] 3 S.C.R. 1089 · Decided: 24-07-2001 · Supreme Court of India · Bench: S. RAJENDRA BABU

Cited by 1 judgment(s) · see the full citation network in Lexace

Judgment (excerpt)

MAHATMA PHULE AGRICULTURAL UNIVERSITY AND ORS. 
A 
v. 
~ 
NASIK ZILLA SHETH KAMGAR UNION AND ORS. 
JULY 24, 200 l 
[S. RAJENDRA BABU AND S.N. V ARIA VA, JJ.] 
B 
Industrial Disputes Act, 1947. 
Sections 10(/)(d), 12(5) & 33-C(l)-lndustrial dispute-Agricultural 
Universities funded and controlled by State Government-Daily Wagers c 
therein claiming pennanency-Held, status of permanency cannot be granted 
when there are no posts-Inaction by State Government to create posts-
Held, Universities not guilty of unfair trade practice under item 6 of Schedule 
.f V..,.-Daily Wages increased-Award not challenged-Universities not 
implementing award-Held, Universities guilty of unfair trade practice under D 
Item 9 of Schedule IV-The Maharashtra Agricultural Universities (Krishi 
Vidyapeeth) Act, 1983-Maharashtra Recognition of Trade Unions & 
Prevention of Unfair Labour Practices Act, 1971. 
Service Law-Daily wagers-Industrial dispute by some daily wagers-
Award increasing their daily wages-Whether other daily wagers also entitled E 
to its benefit-Held, other daily wagers also entitled to benefit of award-
Equal pay for Equal work-Held, principle applicable. 
Appellants are Agricultural Universities established and function under 
provisions of The Maharashtra Agricultural Univenities (Krishi Vidyapeeth) 
Act, 1983 and are controlled and funded by State of Maharashtra. Appellants F 
own large tracts of land which are used for agricultural education and 
research activities for which th~y had engaged daily wage labourers. Since 
these workmen were not granted same wages and benefits available to 
permanent worked, some workmen raised industrial dispute and claimed 
permanency, corresponding pay scales, dearness allowance, enhanced rates 
of daily wages, house rent allowance, etc., Tribunal disallowed claim for G 
permanency and corresponding wages but granted some other benefits 
including increase in rates of daily wages, etc. This award was not challenged. 
,,, { 
These workmen filed an application under Section 33-C(2) of the Industrial 
Disputes Act for computation of amount payable as per the Award. Since 
benefits granted under award were not being given to workmen who had not H 
1089 
1090 
SUPREME COURT REPORTS 
[2001] 3 S.C.R. 
A raised dispute, various complaints were made by such workmen under 
Maharashtra Recognition of Trade Unions & Prevention of Unfair Labour 
, 
Practices Act, 1971 (MRTU & PULP Act). Various orders came to be passed 
;--.. 
on these complaints granting permanency to these workmen. In the 
proceedings under Section 33-C(2), appellant-Universities were directed to 
B pay as per the award and amount payable to each workman was computed and 
set out. 
Appellant-Universities filed writ petitions challenging orders in 
application under Section 33-C(2) of the Industrial Disputes Act and 
complaints under MRTU & PULP Act. High Court held that Unfair labour 
C practice under Item 6 of Schedule IV of MRTU & PULP Act has been 
committed; and that though workmen were not entided to status of permanency, 
they were entided to wages and other benefits applicable to permanent workmen 
and directed payment accordingly. Aggrieved by the judgement of the High 
Court, various Universities and the State, and workmen against the rejection 
of their demand for permanency, have filed the present appeals. Workmen 
D also filed Con!empt Petitions. 
' 
Workmen contended that they were entitled to be made permanent. 
Universities contended that Award had been implemented; that it was a one 
time Award and was not to operate forever; and that they did not have funds 
E to make payments. 
Disposing the appeals, the Court 
HELD : 1. Status of permanency cannot be granted when there are no 
posts. [1097-F] 
' 
. 
' 
F 
2.1. The High Court indirectly does what it could not do directly. The 
,1,- · 
High Court, without granting the status of permanency, grants wages and 
other benefits applicable to permanent employees on the specious reasoning 
that inaction on the part of th_e Government in not creating posts amounted 
to unfair labour practice under Item 6 of Schedule IV ofMRTU & PULP Act. 
G Once the High Court had come to the conclusion that for lack of posts the 
employees could not be made permanent, it could not have then gone on to 
hold that they were continued' as "badlis'', casuals or temporaries with the 
object of depriving them of the status and privileges of permanent employees. 
The complaint was not against 

Excerpt shown. Read the full judgment & AI analysis in Lexace.