Case Note & Summary
The judgment concerns two writ petitions arising from an order of the Industrial Court, Pune, in Complaint (ULP) Nos.169 of 1993 and 493 of 1993. The petitioner in Writ Petition No.3859 of 1997 is Mahindra Sintered Products Ltd. (the Company), and the petitioners in Writ Petition No.3936 of 1998 are two workmen, Rajaram Vilas Shendkar and Hanumant Sopan More, who were denied relief by the Industrial Court. The background involves complaints filed on 17 June 1993 by the Bharatiya Kamgar Sena (the Union) on behalf of employees of the Company, alleging unfair labour practices under Items 6 and 9 of Schedule IV of the Maharashtra Recognition of Trade Union and Prevention of Unfair Labour Practices Act, 1971 (MRTU & PULP Act). The Union contended that the Company employed workers as casual or temporary workmen for years to deprive them of permanent status, constituting an unfair labour practice under Item 6. Additionally, it was argued that the employees had completed 240 days of service and were entitled to be made permanent under Model Standing Order 4-C, and the failure to do so amounted to an unfair labour practice under Item 9. The Industrial Court found that the Company had engaged in unfair labour practices under Item 6 for all workmen listed, but under Item 9 only for some workmen. The Company challenged this order in Writ Petition No.3859 of 1997, while the two workmen who were denied relief under Item 9 filed Writ Petition No.3936 of 1998. The High Court examined the evidence and submissions. It held that the Industrial Court's finding of unfair labour practice under Item 6 was correct, as the Company had employed workmen as casual/temporary for extended periods. However, the High Court found that the Industrial Court had erred in directing the Company to make all workmen permanent, as the finding under Item 9 was not established for all workmen. The High Court set aside the direction for permanency for those workmen where Item 9 was not proved, and upheld the order for those where it was. The workmen's cross-petition was dismissed for lack of evidence to show they had completed 240 days. The decision balances the rights of workmen against the employer's obligations under the MRTU & PULP Act.
Headnote
A) Industrial Law - Unfair Labour Practice - Permanent Status - Items 6 and 9 of Schedule IV, Maharashtra Recognition of Trade Union and Prevention of Unfair Labour Practices Act, 1971 - The issue was whether the Company's continued employment of workmen as casual/temporary for years constituted an unfair labour practice under Item 6 (employing as casual/temporary to deprive of permanent status) and Item 9 (failure to make permanent after 240 days service under Model Standing Order 4-C). The Industrial Court found that the Company had engaged in unfair labour practices under Item 6 but not under Item 9 for some workmen. The High Court upheld the finding of unfair labour practice under Item 6 but set aside the direction to make workmen permanent where the Industrial Court had not found a breach of Item 9. Held that the burden of proof lies on the workmen to show they have completed 240 days and are entitled to permanency. (Paras 1-10)
Issue of Consideration
Whether the Company engaged in unfair labour practices by employing workmen as casual/temporary for years and whether the workmen were entitled to permanent status under Model Standing Order 4-C.
Final Decision
The High Court partly allowed the Company's writ petition (WP 3859/1997) and dismissed the workmen's writ petition (WP 3936/1998). The Industrial Court's finding of unfair labour practice under Item 6 was upheld, but the direction to make workmen permanent was set aside for those workmen where the Industrial Court had not found a breach of Item 9. The order for permanency for workmen covered by Item 9 was upheld. The workmen's petition was dismissed for lack of evidence.
Law Points
- Unfair labour practice
- permanent status
- casual/temporary workmen
- Model Standing Order 4-C
- Items 6 and 9 Schedule IV MRTU & PULP Act
- 240 days service
- burden of proof
