Back
IN THE HIGH COURT OF BOMBAY
S.S. Nijjar, J.
Pravin Krishna Jadhav others.... Petitioners.
Versus
Rashtriya Chemicals and Fertilizers Limited... Respondent.
Writ Petition No. 2093 of 1998, decided on 29-6-2000.
Advocates appeared :
Colin Gonsalves, for the petitioner.
J.P. Cama with Mrs. Ayesha Somandi and C.K. Thomas i/b M.S. Bodhanwala Co., for the respondent.
Rule 3 and Schedule I, Part B, Model Standing Orders, Cls. 4-B and 4-C-Permanent workman-On completion of 240 days workman entitled to be treated as permanent in terms of Clause 4-B of the Model Standing Order.--Once the workman completes 240 days he is entitled to be automatically treated as a permanent employee on the basis of Clause 4-B of Model Standing Orders. Merely because he would not be entitled to any benefit under the Industrial Disputes Act by virtue of Section 2 (oo)(bb) would not disentitle the workman from the benefits which would flow from his being declared as a permanent workman by operation of Model Standing Orders. It would make no difference whatsoever as to whether the employment has come to an end by efflux of time or by some other reason which, would tantamount to discharge or termination of service. The effect of cessation is clearly non- employment. Cessation of work of petitioners who had completed more than 240 days in the year 1988 by efflux of time would amount to discharge/termination of service of petitioners since the procedure prescribed under the Model Standing Orders for discharge / termination of services of the permanent workman has not been followed. The action was clearly illegal. The petitioners could not have been removed from service without complying with the provisions of the Model Standing Order, which would be applicable for discharge/ termination of a permanent workman.
Petitioner No. 1
Period Department
1. 09-10-86 to 07-11-1986 ANP (ELect.)
2. 10-11-86 to 21-11-1986 DF Office.
3. 22-03-87 to 03-04-1987 Tr. IV Bagging.
4. 13-04-87 to 05-05-1987 Soil Testing.
5. 20-05-87 to 05-06-1987 -do-
6. 08-06-87 to 29-06-1987 -do-
7. 05-12-87 to 31-12-1987 Tr. IV Bagging.
8. 01-01-88 to 19-09-1988 Tr. V Bagging.
9. 20-10-88 to 21-11-1988 -do-
10. 27-12-88 to 24-03-1989 -do-
11. 15-05-89 to 31-05-1989 Old Bagging.
12. 01-06-89 to 11-06-1989 Tr. IV Bagging.
Petitioner No. 2
Period Department
1. 08-12-86 to 28-01-1987 Tr. V. Bagging.
2. 10-03-87 to 03-04-1987 -do-
3. 01-05-87 to 25-05-1987 -do-
4. 27-08-87 to 26-09-1987 -do-
5. 06-11-87 to 12-11-1987 Tr. IV Bagging.
6. 01-01-88 to 19-10-1988 -do-
7. 27-12-88 to 24-03-1989 -do-
8. 19-05-89 to 31-05-1989 Old Bagging.
9. 01-06-89 to 11-06-1989 Tr. IV Bagging.
Petitioner No. 3
Period Department
1. 05-12-87 to 31-12-1987 Tr. IV Bagging.
2. 01-01-88 to 19-10-1988 Tr. V Bagging.
3. 22-10-88 to 21-11-1988 -do-
4. 27-12-88 to 24-03-1989 -do-
5. 19-05-89 to 31-05-1989 Old Bagging.
6. 01-06-89 to 11-06-1989 Tr. IV Bagging.
Petitioner No. 4
Period Department
1. 05-12-87 to 31-12-1987 Tr. IV Bagging.
2. 01-01-88 to 21-11-198 r. V Bagging
3. 07-12-88 to 24-03-1989 Transportation .
4. 19-05-89 to 31-05-1989 Tr. V. Bagging.
Petitioner No. 5
Period
1. 12-4-85 to 22-04-1985
2. 05-10-85 to 19-10-1985
3. 28-05-86 to 13-06-1986.
4. 17-07-86 to 23-07-1986.
5. 29-07-86 to 01-09-1986.
6. 16-09-86 to 09-10-1986.
7. 01-11-86 to 06-02-1987.
8. 12-02-87 to 30-04-1987.
9. 06-08-87 to 15-08-1987.
10. 14-02-88 to 29-02-1988.
A perusal of the above shows that petitioner Nos. 1, 2, 3, and 4 had completed more than 240 days in the year 1988. Petitioner No. 5, however, has not completed 240 days in any of the years. Hence, Mr. Gonsalves has not pressed the petition on behalf of petitioner No. 5. The services of the petitioners were terminated on different dates. The petitioners, therefore, raised a grievance before the Labour Commissioner stating that the termination was by way of retrenchment and as retrenchment notice and retrenchment compensation was not tendered, the retrenchment was illegal. Without prejudice to the above, the workmen also submitted that the termination was punitive for alleged misconduct of absence without leave and no enquiry was conducted of absence without leave and no enquiry was conducted and no charge-sheet was issued. Reference was made to the 7th Labour Court, Mumbai. Statements of claim were filed. In the statement of claim, in addition to the aforesaid pleas, it is also stated that the petitioners have continued in the employment without any break of service for more than 240 days in a calendar year. Therefore, they are entitled to be treated as permanent employees as per law. The Model Standing Orders are not specifically mentioned.
2. After considering the entire matter, the 7th Labour Court, Mumbai, has dismissed the Reference.
3. I have heard the Counsel for the parties at length and perused the Award. The Labour Court framed four issues. One of the issues was as to whether or not the services of the petitioners have been illegally terminated. All the issues have been decided against the petitioners. After noticing the various citations and the submissions made by the Counsel, it has been held that the termination of the petitioners does not amount to retrenchment. It is further held that it is an automatic cessation of service by efflux of time. Therefore, by not giving any further appointment to the petitioners, there cannot be said to be any termination of service. The Labour Court notices the admission of the petitioners that the appointments of the petitioners have been given for a fixed period. It is fu
An indispensable Tool for Legal Professionals, Endorsed by Various High Court and Judicial Officers
Please visit our Training & Support
Center or Contact Us for assistance
Scan Me!
India’s Legal research and Law Firm App, Download now!
For Daily Legal Updates, Join us on :
Back to top
