2000 Supreme(Bom) 626

IN THE HIGH COURT OF BOMBAY
Dr. D.Y. Chandrachud, J.
Burroughs Welcome (I) Ltd. (M/s.) others.... Petitioners.
Versus
D.H. Ghosle others.... Respondents.
Writ Petition No. 1661 of 2000 with Writ Petition (Lodging) No. 1628 of 2000, decided on 10-8-2000.
Advocates appeared :
P.K. Rele with R.P. Rele and V.P. Sawant, in W.P. No. 1661/2000, for the petitioner and in W.P. No. 1628/2000, for the respondents.
Ashok D. Shetty, in W.P. No. 1661/2000, for the respondents.
Ashok D. Shetty with Harijivan D. Shetty and Dipal Talwar, in W.P. No. 1628/2000, for the petitioners.

Headnote:Sch. IV, Items 6, 9 and 10-Permanent status denied to workers-240 days in an year not completed-Whether it is a fair practice-Held-Evidence show that the work was available but management did not provide permanent status as it got more work even an less payment-Court needed to take realistic view-Unfair labour practices committed-The workers are allowed permanent status from date of application.- The company sought to justify the disparity in service conditions by stating that the reason why the temporary workers were not given the same emoluments was that they were not covered by the settlement which was entered into by the Union. It may well be that the Union which represents the permanent workers does not choose to espouse the cause of temporary workers. However, that is no ground for the employer to sustain such a wide disparity. To say that the temporary workers were not given the service conditions of permanent workmen because a settlement did not cover the temporary workmen, would be a mere tautology but not a valid justification. Consequently, the evidence on the record is capable of only one conclusion and that is that the workmen in question were continued for several years as temporaries, only with a view to depriving them of the status and privileges of permanent workmen. The petitioner employer is clearly guilty of an unfair labour practice within the meaning of Item 6 of Schedule IV of the Act. The workers are, therefore, entitled to a declaration as sought for in the complaint field before the Industrial Court. The respondent shall, therefore, grant the benefit of permanency to the workmen with effect from 12th August, 1996 which was the date on which the complaint was field before the Industrial Court together with all consequential benefits.

       Sch. IV, Items 6, 9 and 10Workers employed for many years-Not allowed to complete 240 days in a year-court directed there to the made permanent under a period of two years-Held-It would be hazardous to attempt an exhaustive enumeration of facts which could make it a case within Unfair Labour Practice-Each case need to be considered independently-Court has no jurisdiction to impose condition that are not imposed by legislation.-In every case in which there is an allegation of a violation of Item 6 of Schedule IV of the Act, the Court must make a realistic appraisal of the circumstances on the record for the purpose of evaluating whether the object of employer came within the mischief of Item 6. The length of service which is rendered by the employees as temporary workers, the difference, if any, between the benefits allowed to temporary workers as opposed to permanent workers, the nature of the work which is being performed by the temporary workers and the nature of the business of the employer; these are the circumstances which may be of relevance in arriving at an inference in regard to the object of the employer in employing temporary or casual workers. The Industrial Disputes Act has read into the provisions of the Act, and specifically Item 6-a requirement which has not been incorporated by the Legislature. This is impermissible but particularly more so in the case of labour welfare legislation where the Court ought not to, by introducing conditions which had not been inserted by the Legislature, impose additional burdens to the grant of relief to those for whom the legislation was intended, therefore, the very foundation of the order of the Industrial Court is, thus, unsustainable.