Case Note & Summary
The dispute arose from the termination of Shri Gangadhar Balgopal Nair, a temporary unskilled workman employed by Voltas Limited, a factory at Thane engaged in manufacturing engineering goods. The workman’s services were terminated on 23 November 1987 after he had completed 240 days of service in the preceding twelve months. In his complaint under the Maharashtra Recognition of Trade Unions and Prevention of Unfair Labour Practices (MRTU & PULP) Act, 1971, the workman alleged unfair labour practices under Items 5, 6, 9 and 10 of Schedule IV. He contended that having worked 240 days, he was entitled to permanency under Model Standing Order 4-C of the Bombay Industrial Employment (Standing Order) Rules, 1959, and that his termination without compliance of Section 25-F of the Industrial Disputes Act, 1947 amounted to retrenchment and an unfair labour practice. The Industrial Court, Thane, by its order dated 7 September 1994, accepted both contentions. It held that Model Standing Order 4-C applied to the employer despite the existence of certified standing orders dated 25 November 1966 which lacked a similar provision. It declared the workman permanent from the date he completed 240 days and directed reinstatement with full back wages, finding the termination violated Section 25-F and constituted an unfair labour practice under Item 9. The employer filed a writ petition before the Bombay High Court. A learned Single Judge (Shrikrishna, J.) partly allowed the petition by order dated 17 July 1995. Relying on a Division Bench decision in May & Baker Ltd. v. Kishore Jaikishandas Icchaporia (1991 II LLN 879), the Single Judge quashed the finding that Model Standing Order 4-C automatically applied, holding that it did not override certified standing orders. However, the Single Judge upheld the finding that the termination was retrenchment in violation of Section 25-F, and directed the employer to continue the workman as a temporary unskilled workman with continuity of service and back wages for the period 23 November 1987 to 31 March 1991, inclusive of increments. Aggrieved by the denial of permanent status, the workman filed the present Letters Patent Appeal on 9 October 1995, which was admitted on 13 October 1995. During the pendency of the appeal, the workman was made permanent in 1997 and the back wages awarded by the Single Judge were paid. Consequently, the only surviving question was whether Model Standing Order 4-C conferred permanency on the workman from the date he completed 240 days, notwithstanding the employer’s certified standing orders. The court proceeded to examine the scheme of the Industrial Employment (Standing Orders) Act, 1946, and the amendments made by Bombay Act 21 of 1958, to determine whether the Single Judge’s reliance on May & Baker Ltd. was correct. The analysis of statutory provisions was left incomplete in the available text, and no final order on the appeal was recorded in the provided excerpt.
Headnote
A) Industrial Law - Standing Orders - Applicability of Model Standing Orders - Industrial Employment (Standing Orders) Act, 1946, Sections 2(ee), 15; Bombay Industrial Employment (Standing Order) Rules, 1959, Schedule I, Model Standing Order 4-C - The workman claimed permanency under Model Standing Order 4-C after completing 240 days of service; the employer had certified standing orders without such a provision - The learned Single Judge held that Model Standing Order 4-C does not automatically apply to establishments with certified standing orders, relying on May & Baker Ltd. v. Kishore Jaikishandas Icchaporia, 1991 II LLN 879 - The Industrial Court had earlier held otherwise and declared the workman permanent, but this finding was quashed - The issue in appeal is whether this finding is correct (Paras 2(f), 3-8). B) Industrial Disputes - Retrenchment - Compliance with Section 25-F - Industrial Disputes Act, 1947, Sections 2(oo), 25-B(2), 25-F; MRTU & PULP Act, 1971, Schedule IV, Item 9 - The workman's termination after completing 240 days in 12 months was held to be retrenchment without compliance of Section 25-F, thus constituting an unfair labour practice under Item 9 - The Industrial Court and the Single Judge both upheld this finding, directing reinstatement as a temporary unskilled workman with continuity and back wages for the period 23.11.1987 to 31.3.1991 (Paras 2(a), 2(e), 2(g)).
Issue of Consideration
Whether Model Standing Order 4-C of the Bombay Industrial Employment (Standing Order) Rules, 1959 applies automatically to an industrial establishment that has certified standing orders without a similar provision, thereby entitling a temporary workman to permanency on completion of 240 days of service.
Law Points
- Applicability of Model Standing Order 4-C to establishments having certified standing orders
- retrenchment under Section 2(oo) of Industrial Disputes Act
- 1947
- compliance with Section 25-F of Industrial Disputes Act
- unfair labour practice under Item 9 of Schedule IV of MRTU & PULP Act
- 1971
