Case Note & Summary
The case involves a Letters Patent Appeal before the Bombay High Court arising from a dispute between a workman, Shri Gangadhar Balgopal Nair, and his employer, M/s. Voltas Limited. The appellant was employed as a temporary workman in the industrial establishment of the respondent, which is engaged in manufacturing engineering goods. He challenged his termination under the Maharashtra Recognition of Trade Unions and Prevention of Unfair Labour Practices Act, 1971 (MRTU & PULP Act), alleging breach of items 5, 6, 9, and 10 of Schedule IV. His primary contention was that he was entitled to the status of a permanent workman under clause 4C of the Model Standing Orders contained in Schedule I to the Bombay Industrial Employment (Standing Orders) Rules, 1959, upon completion of 240 days of uninterrupted service. The Industrial Tribunal had ruled in his favor, holding that he was entitled to permanency because clause 4C was inserted in the Model Standing Orders. However, the learned single Judge of the High Court reversed that decision, holding that Model Standing Order 4C did not automatically apply to the industrial establishment of the respondent without amendment of its certified standing orders. Consequently, the workman was not entitled to the status of a permanent employee on completion of 240 days. The Division Bench, hearing the Letters Patent Appeal, referred the following question to a larger Bench: 'Whether Model Standing Order 4-C as contained in Schedule I to the Bombay Industrial Employment (Standing Orders) Rules, 1959 ipso facto applies to a temporary workman in an industrial establishment without its incorporation into a pre-existing certified standing order.' The order was reserved on 1.12.2006 and pronounced on 15.12.2006 by a Bench comprising Justices R.M. Lodha, S.A. Bobde, and V.M. Kanade, with the opinion authored by Justice S.A. Bobde. The court did not finally decide the appeal but referred the legal question for authoritative determination by a larger Bench.
Headnote
A) Industrial Law - Standing Orders - Model Standing Order 4-C - Applicability to Temporary Workmen - The question referred was whether Model Standing Order 4-C ipso facto applies to a temporary workman without incorporation into certified standing orders - The Division Bench referred the question to a larger Bench, noting that the learned single Judge held that Model Standing Order 4-C did not automatically apply without amendment of certified standing orders - The Industrial Tribunal had held that the workman was entitled to permanency because clause 4C was inserted in the Model Standing Orders (Paras 1-2).
Issue of Consideration
Whether Model Standing Order 4-C as contained in Schedule I to the Bombay Industrial Employment (Standing Orders) Rules, 1959 ipso facto applies to a temporary workman in an industrial establishment without its incorporation into a pre-existing certified standing order.
Final Decision
The Division Bench referred the question to a larger Bench for answer: 'Whether Model Standing Order 4-C as contained in Schedule I to the Bombay Industrial Employment (Standing Orders) Rules, 1959 ipso facto applies to a temporary workman in an industrial establishment without its incorporation into a pre-existing certified standing order.' The appeal was not finally decided.
Law Points
- Model Standing Order 4-C does not automatically apply to temporary workmen in industrial establishments without incorporation into pre-existing certified standing orders
- Industrial Employment (Standing Orders) Act
- 1946
- Bombay Industrial Employment (Standing Orders) Rules
- 1959
