In a big win for forest workers in Nashik, the Bombay High Court has decided that several employees should be given permanent status. This decision comes after a long legal battle where the workers claimed they were treated unfairly by their employer, the Forest Development Corporation, Nashik.
The case involves multiple appeals by the Divisional Manager of the Forest Development Corporation, Nashik, against several workers who served as watchmen. These employees were hired between 1977 and 1992 and claimed they had been kept on temporary status unfairly.
The workers filed complaints under a law meant to recognize unions and prevent unfair labor practices. They argued that they had worked for more than 240 days each year, which should make them eligible for permanent status. The Industrial Court agreed, saying that the corporation had indeed treated the workers unfairly.
"The workers were continuously working without any break and had definitely completed more than 240 days each year," said the Industrial Court.
The Forest Development Corporation argued that they were not required to make the workers permanent because they were hired for temporary projects. They claimed these projects did not promise ongoing work or employment.
The High Court, led by Justices G. S. Kulkarni and Aarti Sathe, agreed with the Industrial Court's decision. They ruled that the employees had been wrongly denied permanent status and were entitled to benefits starting April 1, 1998.
"The company's argument about there being no official job position doesn't matter," the court declared.
The court ordered that the workers be given permanent status and receive all due benefits within eight weeks. This decision is seen as a significant step towards ensuring fair treatment and securing the rights of workers who have been in service for many years.
The High Court's decision is a clear victory for the workers. The court has ordered that the workers be granted permanent status and receive their benefits within eight weeks. The Forest Development Corporation's request to keep a temporary order in place was denied.
Disclaimer: The names used in this report are fictitious and have been added for privacy reasons.
