Case Note & Summary
The case involves an appeal by Bharatiya Kamgar Karmachari Mahasangh, a trade union representing 169 workmen temporarily engaged on fixed-term contracts by M/s. Jet Airways Ltd. as loaders-cum-cleaners, drivers, and operators. The union contended that the workmen had completed 240 days of service and should be treated as permanent under the Bombay Model Standing Orders. However, a settlement dated 02.05.2002 between the union and the company had resolved a charter of demands, wherein the union gave up the demand for permanency in exchange for other benefits. The Central Government Industrial Tribunal (CGIT) rejected the union's demand for reinstatement with full back wages, holding that non-renewal of fixed-term contracts does not constitute retrenchment under Section 2(oo)(bb) of the Industrial Disputes Act, 1947. The Bombay High Court confirmed this award. The Supreme Court framed two issues: (1) which authority is appropriate to issue standing orders under the Industrial Employment (Standing Orders) Act, 1946, and (2) whether a private settlement overrides standing orders. The Court held that the appropriate government is determined by the control of the establishment, and that the settlement, being a package deal, overrides the Model Standing Orders. Consequently, the appeal was dismissed, upholding the CGIT award and High Court judgment.
Headnote
A) Industrial Law - Appropriate Government - Standing Orders - Section 2(b) of Industrial Employment (Standing Orders) Act, 1946 - The appropriate government for issuing standing orders is determined by the control of the industrial establishment: Central Government for establishments under its control, railways, major ports, mines, oilfields; State Government for all others. (Paras 4-5) B) Industrial Law - Settlement vs. Standing Orders - Binding Effect - Section 2(e) of Industrial Employment (Standing Orders) Act, 1946 - A settlement entered into between the trade union and the employer, which is a package deal conferring benefits on workmen, can override the Model Standing Orders. The workmen gave up the demand for permanency in exchange for other benefits, and such settlement is binding. (Paras 2, 5) C) Industrial Disputes - Retrenchment - Fixed-Term Contract - Section 2(oo)(bb) of Industrial Disputes Act, 1947 - Non-renewal of a fixed-term contract does not amount to retrenchment. Therefore, the workmen engaged on fixed-term contracts are not entitled to reinstatement or re-employment upon expiry of the contract. (Para 2)
Issue of Consideration
Which is the Appropriate Authority empowered to issue Standing Orders under the Industrial Employment (Standing Orders) Act, 1946? Whether private agreement/settlement between the parties would override the Standing Order?
Final Decision
Appeal dismissed. The Supreme Court upheld the CGIT award and Bombay High Court judgment, holding that the settlement overrides the Model Standing Orders and that non-renewal of fixed-term contracts does not amount to retrenchment.
Law Points
- Appropriate Government under Industrial Employment (Standing Orders) Act
- 1946
- Settlement overrides Standing Orders
- Fixed-term contract not retrenchment under Section 2(oo)(bb) of Industrial Disputes Act
- 1947
