JUDGMENT - Dr. D.Y. CHANDRACHUD, J.:---The petitioner had filed a complaint (Complaint U.L.P. No. 501 of 1990) in which it was alleged that the first respondent was guilty of an unfair labour practices under Items 6, 9 and 10 of Schedule IV of the Maharashtra Recognition of Trade Unions and Prevention of Unfair Labour Practices Act, 1971 ("the M.R.T.U. P.U.L.P. Act"). The petitioner was engaged as a motor training instructor by the First respondent with effect from 15th February, 1988 on a monthly salary of Rs. 1,200/-. The grievance of the petitioner was that he had been denied the benefit of permanency as well as other benefits which were being enjoyed by the permanent workmen. The grievance of the petitioner was also that the existing settlement extended benefits to all employees other than the motor training instructors. The complaint filed by the petitioner came to be allowed by an order dated 17th November, 1995 passed by the Industrial Court, Bombay and the following operative directions were issued by the Industrial Court :

"Complainant is entitled to all the benefits like a permanent employee and will also be eligible for P.F., E.S.I. Bonus after completion of 240 days

Click Here to Read the rest of this document