JUDGMENT - B.N. SRIKRISHNA, J. :--This writ petition under Article 226 of the Constitution of India raises a ticklish point of law pertaining to the interpretation of the provisions of the Industrial Employment (Standing Orders) Act, 1946 (hereinafter referred to as "the Act").

2. The petitioner is an establishment engaged in the manufacture of engineering goods and supply of engineering services and owns a factory at Thane employing about 700 workmen. The provisions of the Act are applicable to the industrial establishment of the petitioner.

3. The second respondent was intermittently employed as a temporary workman from the year 1982 onwards in unskilled category. His service came to be finally terminated on 23rd November, 1987. It is not in dispute that, in the period of 12 calendar months viz., prior to 23rd November, 1987, the second respondent had completed working for 240 days.

4. The second respondent moved a complaint, Complaint (ULP) No. 47 of 1988, before the Industrial Court, Thane, alleging unfair labour practices under Items 5, 6, 9 and 10 of Schedule IV of the MRTU PULP Act, 1971. The crux of the case made out in the complaint was that the second respondent having completed 240 days of actual working in a span of 12 calendar months immediately prior to the date of the termination of his service, he must be deemed to have completed one years continuous service within the meaning of section 25-B(2) of the Industrial Disputes Act, 1947; that the termination of his service amounted to retrenchment within the meaning of section 2(oo) of the Industrial Disputes Act, 1947; that, as admittedly the provisions of section 25-F were not complied with before terminating his service, the termination of his service was illegal and contrary to section 25-F and amounted to an unfair labour practice under Item 9 of Schedule IV of the MRTU PULP Act. A subsidiary contention was also raised that Model Standing Order 4-C notified under the Industrial Employment (Standing Orders) Act, 1946, was applicable to the establishment of the petitioner, despite the petitioner having a set of Certified Standing Orders. It was contended that, under the provisions of Model Standing Order 4-C a workman was entitled to permanency on the completion of 240 days aggregate service in an establishment and these conditions having been fulfilled by the second respondent, he was entitled to get permanency; that as the petitioner had failed to make him permanent and thus contravened the provision of Model Standing Order and engaged in an unfair labour practice within the meaning of Item 9 of Schedule IV of the MRTU PULP Act. It was also contended that the petitioner had continued the service of the second respondent workman as a temporary workman for years together with the intention of depriving him of the status and benefits of permanency and thus indulged in an unfair labour practice within the meaning of Item 6 of Schedule IV of the said Act. Finally, it was contended that by continuing the first respondent as a temporary workman for years against his will, the petitioner had indulged in an unfair labour practice under Item 10 of Schedule IV of the said Act.

5. The Industrial Court recorded evidence and by the impugned order dated 7th September, 1994, held that the provisions of Model Standing Order 4-C were applicable to the petitioners establishment and that by not making the second respondent permanent from the date of completion of 240 days aggregate service, the petitioner had engaged in an unfair labour practice under Item 9 of Schedule IV. It also held that the termination of the second respondents service amounted to retrenchment in contravention of the provisions of section 25-F of the Industrial Disputes Act and, hence, an unfair labour practice within the meaning of Item 9 of Schedule IV of the MRTU PULP Act. The Industrial Court held that no unfair labour practices under Items 5 and 6 of Schedule IV of the said Act were found to have bee

Click Here to Read the rest of this document