Bombay High Court Nagpur Bench Reviews Industrial Court's Finding of Unfair Labour Practice Against Employer for Denying Permanent Status to Temporary Workers. Court Examines Whether Completion of 240 Days of Continuous Service Under Model Standing Orders Mandates Confirmation.

Challenge to industrial court order declaring unfair labour practice by employer under MRTU Act and directing confirmation of temporary workers under model standing orders; cross-petition by employee against denial of full regularisation.

The employer sought quashing of the Industrial Court's order dated 25.11.2005 and dismissal of the ULPA complaints. The employee Sudhakar Narad sought setting aside of the rejection of his claim for regularisation from the date of completion of 240 days with consequential benefits.

The employer contended that the Industrial Court erred in holding unfair labour practices as complainants were engaged for fixed durations due to temporary increase in work and were not entitled to permanency. The employee contended that the Industrial Court erred in not granting regularisation despite finding unfair labour practice.

The Industrial Court, by common order dated 25.11.2005, partly allowed complaints, declared unfair labour practice under items 5 and 9 of Schedule IV of MRTU Act, and directed confirmation under clause 4-C of Model Standing Orders from the date of institution of complaints. In Complaint No. 703/2003 filed by Sudhakar Narad, the Industrial Court partly allowed the complaint but rejected the prayer for regularisation from the date of completion of 240 days with consequential benefits.

Whether the employer engaged in unfair labour practice under items 5 and 9 of Schedule IV of MRTU Act by not making temporary workers permanent and by engaging juniors during artificial breaks? Whether the Industrial Court correctly directed confirmation under clause 4-C of Model Standing Orders from the date of institution of complaints? Whether the employee Sudhakar Narad is entitled to regularisation from the date of completion of 240 days of continuous service with consequential benefits?

The complainants argued that they completed 240 days of continuous service, became permanent under model standing orders, but the employer gave artificial breaks and employed juniors, violating clauses 3(2)(g), 4C, 4D of Model Standing Orders. The employer argued that it engaged temporary workers due to temporary increase in work, gave orders for fixed duration, denied rotation or artificial breaks, and contended the complaints were time-barred. It also stated that from 1/4/2003 it did not engage any temporary worker.

The learned member of Industrial Court has disposed of all these complaints by common order on 25th November 2005 and while partly allowing the complaints, gave declaration that employer has indulged in unfair Labour practice under items 5 and 9 of Schedule IV and directed employer to give confirmation to all complainants under clause 4-C of Model Standing Orders from the date of institution of Complaints. It is further stated that this is in violation of provisions of model Standing Orders 3(2)(g), 4C and 4D of model Standing Orders. It is contended that after completion of 240 days of continuous service each complainant became permanent but employer violated these requirements of model Standing Orders and continued to employ new or junior employees.

Complaints under Section 28 MRTU Act filed before Industrial Court. Industrial Court common order dated 25.11.2005 partly allowed complaints. Employer filed writ petitions challenging order; employee filed cross-petition. High Court admitted on 13.2.2006, interim relief granted. Directed final hearing on 7.4.2006. Judgment reserved 10.8.2006, pronounced 19.9.2006.

• Maharashtra Recognition of Trade Unions & Prevention of Unfair Labour Practices Act, 1971: Section 28, Schedule IV Item 5, Schedule IV Item 9
• Bombay Industrial Relations Act: Section 35, Model Standing Orders Clauses 3(2)(g), 4C, 4D