In a case revolving around the permanency status claimed by Forest Labourers who are essentially known as ‘Van Majdoor’, engaged in cleaning cages of wild animals, and providing meat and nursing to these wild animals, including their medication and other ancillary works, the Bombay High Court ruled that services rendered by these workmen cannot be discriminated if their nature is same as those of the permanently employed workers of the Forest Department. The Court emphasised that once they are continued in employment for years together without implementing various social security measures, it would amount to depriving them of the benefits, status, and privilege of a permanent workman.
A Single Judge Bench of Justice Milind N. Jadhav negated the reasoning adopted by the Industrial Court for denying permanent status to the Petitioner-workmen, which was premised on the ground that they had failed to show the existence of sanctioned posts. The Bench stated that such a reasoning of the Industrial Tribunal would amount to the continuation of the exploitation of Petitioners without granting them the benefits of permanency when they are entitled to the same.
The Single Judge noted that the main reason for dismissal of the complaint was that there were no sanctioned and vacant posts against which these workmen could be accommodated as permanent workmen. Discarding such a reason, the Bench stated that continuation as casual workers irrespective of the length of their tenure would amount to their exploitation, when it was an admitted position that Petitioners and similar placed workmen have worked for 240 working days continuously for more than 5 years at a stretch.
The Bench also noted that the Petitioners were paid wages, and they worked alongside regular workmen of the Forest Department, without any break in their unblemished services. Additionally, they were treated like permanent employees and were otherwise employed in high-risk situations with very little safety or precautionary equipment.
Once Petitioners have complied with the twin conditions of 240 days of work in each calendar year continuously for a period of 5 years, and are still being continued by the Forest Department for years together, they cannot be deprived of the legitimate benefit of the permanent status on the ground of unavailability of the sanctioned post.
Accordingly, the Bench directed the Respondents to complete the computation and calculation of the outstanding differential wages due and payable to those Petitioners-workers who are granted the benefit of permanency within a period of 2 weeks and thereafter file a compliance report without fail.
Briefly, in this case, the petitioners, who are ‘Forest Labourers’ in the Group ‘D’ category, working in the capacity of labourers, watchman, cook, and gardener since 2003 onwards in Sanjay Gandhi National Park, continuously without any break, and involved in highly risky job situations of cleaning cages of wild animals and nursing them, has been denied permanency status, when claimed after several decades of employment. When the workmen approached the Industrial Court by way of union complaints, the same were also dismissed.
Cases Relied On:
The Deputy Conservator of Forest Nashik Van Vibhag (E), Nasik and Ors vs. Nasik Zilla Van Shramik Sangh – Writ Petition No. 6398 of 2003
Indubai Narayan Chavan Vs. Dy Conservator of Forest, Pune Division, Pune – Writ Petition No.2223 of 1997
The Conservator of Forests and Anr. Vs. Ananda Soma Ughade – Writ Petition No.3476 of 2004
Appearances:
Advocate Vaishali Jagdale, for the Petitioners
Advocate J.P. Patil, for the Respondents/ State
