Case Note & Summary
The petitioners, M/s Mukand Limited and others, challenged an order of the Labour Court at Thane and the revisional order of the Industrial Court at Thane, which held them guilty of unfair labour practices under Items 1(b) and 1(f) of Schedule IV of the Maharashtra Recognition of Trade Unions and Prevention of Unfair Labour Practices Act, 1971 (MRTU & PULP Act). The respondent union, Dharmarajya Kamgar Karmachari Mahasangha, filed a complaint on behalf of 23 employees who were engaged as 'InPlant Trainees' by the petitioner company. The company claimed that these trainees were appointed under a trainee scheme for fresh ITI and NCTVT pass candidates, with training periods varying from 12+6 months to 36 months. In December 2010, 49 trainees were appointed for 18 months; 6 resigned during training, and the remaining 43 continued until October 2014, when they were discontinued due to unsatisfactory performance or completion of training. The union alleged that these employees were actually regular workers performing regular duties in shifts alongside permanent employees, and were not given any training. They had completed 240 days of uninterrupted service in 12 preceding calendar months, entitling them to be treated as permanent workmen under Clause 4(c) of the Model Standing Orders under the Industrial Employment Standing Orders Act, 1946. Their termination without compliance with Section 25F of the Industrial Disputes Act, 1947 was in colourable exercise of employer's rights. The Labour Court held the employer guilty of unfair labour practices, and the Industrial Court confirmed this on revision. The High Court, after hearing arguments, found that the Labour Court had correctly appreciated the evidence, including the fact that the trainees worked in shifts, were given regular work, and were not provided any training. The court noted that the employer's witness admitted that trainees were given work as per production requirements and that no training was imparted. The court held that the trainees were workmen and had completed 240 days of service, thus entitled to permanency under Clause 4(c) of Model Standing Orders. Their termination without following Section 25F was illegal, and the employer was guilty of unfair labour practices. The High Court dismissed the writ petition, upholding the orders of the Labour Court and Industrial Court.
Headnote
A) Industrial Law - Unfair Labour Practice - Trainee vs Workman - Persons engaged as 'InPlant Trainees' who performed regular work in shifts alongside permanent employees for over 240 days in 12 preceding calendar months are deemed permanent workmen under Clause 4(c) of Model Standing Orders under Industrial Employment Standing Orders Act, 1946 - Their termination without compliance with Section 25F of Industrial Disputes Act, 1947 constitutes unfair labour practice under Items 1(b) and 1(f) of Schedule IV of Maharashtra Recognition of Trade Unions and Prevention of Unfair Labour Practices Act, 1971 - Held that the Labour Court and Industrial Court correctly found the employer guilty of unfair labour practice (Paras 3-8).
Issue of Consideration
Whether persons engaged as 'InPlant Trainees' who performed regular work for over 240 days in 12 calendar months are entitled to be treated as permanent workmen under Clause 4(c) of Model Standing Orders, and whether their termination without complying with Section 25F of Industrial Disputes Act, 1947 constitutes unfair labour practice under Items 1(b) and 1(f) of Schedule IV of MRTU & PULP Act, 1971.
Final Decision
The High Court dismissed the writ petition, upholding the orders of the Labour Court and Industrial Court. The court held that the employer was guilty of unfair labour practices under Items 1(b) and 1(f) of Schedule IV of MRTU & PULP Act, 1971.
Law Points
- Unfair labour practice
- Trainee vs workman
- Model Standing Orders
- Permanent workman
- Section 25F Industrial Disputes Act
- 1947
- Item 1(b) and 1(f) Schedule IV MRTU & PULP Act
- 1971
