Kisan Laxman Mane Vs. Director of Animal Husbandry Pune and ors. - Court Judgment

Excerpt:

.....union and prevention of unfair labour practices act, 1971 - petitioner substantially working as mazdoor was subsequently called upon to do work as tractor driver - despite repeated requests he was paid wages only of mazdoor and finally reverted to post of mazdoor - petitioner's complaint under act to appoint him as tractor driver and pay him wages of tractor driver was dismissed by industrial court - petitioner filed present writ - there is sufficient evidence to show that petitioner was actually carrying out work of tractor driver on several days as indicated in log books - respondents directed to pay pro rata wages of tractor driver for all days on which petitioner worked as tractor driver - issue of petitioner's possessing driving licence not satisfactorily resolved as licence was not produced before industrial court or this court - whether petitioner is entitled to be appointed as tractor driver cannot be conclusively answered - respondents directed to consider petitioner for appointment as tractor driver provided he holds requisite licence but by waiving minimum condition of passing fourth standard examination. - indian penal code, 1860 [c.a. no. 45/1860].sections..........of unfair labour practices act, 1971 (hereinafter referred to as 'the act') 2. the petitioner was working as a mazdoor in the employment of the second respondent since 1977. he was initially working on daily wages and subsequently was made permanent as mazdoor from january 5, 1983. it is the case of the petitioner that he possesses a driving licence for driving heavy vehicles and tractors and, therefore, from february 1, 1982 he was called upon to do work as a tractor driver continuously, but, despite repeated requests, he was being paid wages only of a mazdoor. from february 21, 1986, the petitioner was reverted to the post of mazdoor after which he was not given the work of tractor driver. 3. the petitioner moved the industrial court by way of complaint under section 28(1) read with item 4(c), (d) and (e) of schedule ii and items 3, 5, 6, 7 and 10 of schedule iv of the act and sought relief of a direction to the first and second respondents to appoint him as tractor driver and pay him wages of tractor driver from january 5, 1983. the industrial court which tried the complaint dismissed the complaint. hence, this writ petition. 4. the evidence of the petitioner before the.....

Judgment:

ORDER

1. This writ petition under Articles 14, 19 and 226 of the Constitution of India impugns an order of the Industrial Court, Pune, dated September 3, 1990, made under the provisions of the Maharashtra Recognition of Trade Unions and Prevention of Unfair Labour Practices Act, 1971 (hereinafter referred to as 'the Act')

2. The petitioner was working as a mazdoor in the employment of the Second Respondent since 1977. He was initially working on daily wages and subsequently was made permanent as Mazdoor from January 5, 1983. It is the case of the petitioner that he possesses a driving licence for driving heavy vehicles and tractors and, therefore, from February 1, 1982 he was called upon to do work as a Tractor Driver continuously, but, despite repeated requests, he was being paid wages only of a mazdoor. From February 21, 1986, the petitioner was reverted to the post of mazdoor after which he was not given the work of Tractor Driver.

3. The Petitioner moved the Industrial Court by way of complaint under Section 28(1) read with item 4(c), (d) and (e) of Schedule II and Items 3, 5, 6, 7 and 10 of Schedule IV of the Act and sought relief of a direction to the First and Second Respondents to appoint him as Tractor Driver and pay him wages of Tractor Driver from January 5, 1983. The Industrial Court which tried the complaint dismissed the complaint. Hence, this writ petition.

4. The evidence of the petitioner before the Industrial Court consisted of his own oral testimony, inspection reports of Second Respondent's records and log books maintained by the Second Respondent. The First and Second Respondents examined one Amrutkar, Superintendent (if the Farm. in their support. The inspection report, which was filed after inspection of the documents maintained by the Second respondent, shows that for a continuous period from January 1983 to December 1985 the petitioner was working as a Tractor Driver. The evidence on record shows that the Second Respondent had three tractors bearing Registration Nos. MTJ/8361, MTJ/8362 and MZA/6677. Some time in the year 1986 the petitioner had made an application that he be appointed substantively in the post of Tractor Driver, on which post he has been working from January, 1983. The evidence led by the Second Respondent shows that this application was not entertained on the specious ground that under the Rules the minimum qualification for the post of Tractor Driver was a pass in the fourth standard while the petitioner had passed only the first standard.

5. After having heard the learned counsel on both sides and perused the record, I am satisfied that there is sufficient evidence on record to bear out the case of the petitioner that he was actually and physically carrying out the work of a Tractor Driver on several days as indicated in the log books. In fact, the log book of Tractor MTJ 8361 shows that right from January, 1983 the petitioner worked as Tractor Driver for full month upto December-February 1986. Apart from the finding of the Industrial Court that the petitioner had been continuously working from January. 1983 to December, 1985, the log book suggests that the petitioner has been carrying on the work of Tractor Driver right from September, 1980. The question whether the petitioner does possess a driving licence for a Tractor is not easily answered, because neither the Industrial Court was shown the driving licence, nor is it shown to me. Mr. Malvankar, learned Additional Government Pleader, states that the petitioner does not possess driving licence. It is difficult to accept this assertion of Mr. Malivankar as it is difficult to believe that responsible Officers of the First and Second Respondent had directed the petitioner, though he did not hold the driving licence, to discharge the duty of driver on different tractors. This is something that the top Officers in the Animal Husbandry Department must ponder upon. In any event, the Second Respondent having taken the work of driver from the petitioner right from September, 1980, I see no reason why the petitioner should not he paid said wages for the days on which he had discharged his duties as Tractor Driver right from September 5, 1980.

6. The next question which arises is whether the Petitioner is entitled to he appointed as a Tractor Driver It is difficult to give a conclusive answer to this question as the issue of the Petitioner's possessing driving licence has not been satisfactorily resolved before me. However, the First and Second respondent can be directed to consider petitioner's application for such appointment if he possesses the requisite licence, but without insisting upon his passing fourth Standard examination. It appears to me that the work of the petitioner as a Tractor Driver from 1980 appears to have been without blemish and his not passing fourth standard examination should not he held against him. The First and Second Respondents should consider the petitioner for being appointed as a Tractor Driver, if he holds the requisite licence to drive Tractor, by waiving the minimum condition of passing fourth standard.

7. In the result, the writ petition is allowed. The impugned order dated September 3, 1990, made by the Industrial Court in Complaint (ULP) No. 132 of 1986 is hereby quashed and set aside and the following order is made :

(a) The First and Second Respondents shall pay to the Petitioner pro rata wages of Tractor Driver for all the days on which the Petitioner has discharged his duties as Tractor Driver during the period September 5, 1980 to February, 1986.

(b) The First and Second Respondents shall consider the application of the petitioner for being appointed as a Tractor Driver provided he holds the requisite licence to drive io Tractor, but by waiving the minimum condition of passing fourth standard examination.

(c) The amount (if arrears payable to the Petitioner shall be paid within a period of eight weeks from today tailing which the amount shall carry simple interest at the rate of 15 per annum.

8. Rule accordingly made absolute in the aforegoing terms.

9. The First and Second Respondents shall pay the Petitioner a sum of Rs. 2000/- (Rupees two thousand only) as costs of this writ petition.

Certified copy expedited.