Case Note & Summary
The petitioner, M/s. Permanent Magnets Ltd., challenged an Award of the Industrial Tribunal dated 13th November 2002 in a reference under Section 10 of the Industrial Disputes Act, 1947. The State Government had referred an industrial dispute regarding the demand for permanency of 43 casual workmen. During the pendency of the reference, some workmen resigned or withdrew their claims, leaving only 18 workmen. The Tribunal directed the petitioner to grant permanency to these 18 workmen with effect from the date of reference (29th October 1993) and to pay them wages and extend other facilities available to permanent workmen. The basis of the claim was that the workmen had worked for periods ranging between 3 and 11 years, attending to work of a permanent nature, but were not granted permanency. They alleged that they were given breaks in service and new casual workmen were appointed in their place. The management contended that it had 233 permanent workmen and a pool of 65 casual workers, and that the casual workers were engaged only when permanent workmen were absent or on leave. The management also claimed that 21 persons named in the schedule were not on their rolls. The High Court, in its oral judgment, upheld the Tribunal's award, finding no perversity or error of law. The court noted that the Tribunal had considered the evidence and concluded that the workmen had worked for long periods and the nature of work was permanent. The High Court dismissed the writ petition, holding that the award did not warrant interference under writ jurisdiction.
Headnote
A) Industrial Law - Permanency of Casual Workmen - Section 10, Industrial Disputes Act, 1947 - The Industrial Tribunal directed the employer to grant permanency to 18 casual workmen who had worked for periods ranging between 3 and 11 years, despite breaks in service, holding that the nature of work was permanent and the breaks were artificially created to deny permanency. The High Court upheld the award, finding no perversity or error of law warranting interference under writ jurisdiction. (Paras 1-3) B) Industrial Law - Breaks in Service - Section 10, Industrial Disputes Act, 1947 - The Tribunal found that the workmen were given breaks in service and new casual workmen were appointed in their place, which indicated an attempt to circumvent permanency. The High Court affirmed that such breaks do not defeat a claim for permanency when the work is of a permanent nature and the workmen have rendered continuous service for a long period. (Paras 2-3)
Issue of Consideration
Whether the Industrial Tribunal was justified in directing the grant of permanency to 18 casual workmen with effect from the date of reference, despite the management's contention that they were engaged only to fill temporary vacancies and that breaks in service disentitled them to permanency.
Final Decision
The High Court dismissed the writ petition and upheld the Industrial Tribunal's award directing the petitioner to grant permanency to the 18 workmen with effect from 29th October 1993 and to pay them wages and other benefits available to permanent workmen.
Law Points
- Permanency
- Casual workmen
- Breaks in service
- Industrial Disputes Act
- 1947
- Section 10
- Reference
- Industrial Tribunal
- Award
- Writ petition
- Judicial review
