Back
IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY, BENCH AT AURANGABAD
Ravindra V. Ghuge, J.
Kinetic Engineering Ltd. - Appellant
Vs.
Barku - Respondent
Writ Petition No. 653 of 2007, 3689 of 2009, 4178 of 2009; Civil Application No. 9387 of 2008
Decided On : 06-07-2019
Industrial Disputes Act - Section 25B - Industrial Employment (Standing Orders) Act 1946 - Permanency in employment - Seeking permanency - Respondents/original complainants have been granted permanency in employment with all benefits - Though all of them have been working intermittently as per appointment letters issued to them, breaks in service have been bridged by Industrial Court, which has concluded that they have worked continuously in employment of petitioner industry - Petitioner contends that the impugned judgments are unsustainable - In the first petition, original complainant before approaching Industrial Court by filing a complaint for seeking permanency, he had worked as per chart supplied by him – Said one worked for 38 months, intermittently - Since he approached the Industrial Court by filing a complaint, petitioner Management thereafter continued him - He was given appointment orders - As such, the sum total of his duration of work on daily wages would be about 60 months in a period - Whether these workers can be said to be in continuous employment with Management – Held, When it comes to payment of compensation, status of petitioner, which is a private industry, cannot be equated with a public sector undertaking or with state instrumentalities, who are always facing financial difficulties - No doubt, petitioner has completely lost its manufacturing activity insofar as scooters and motor-cycles are concerned and now they do not produce a single unit of such automobiles - Nevertheless, learned Advocate for the Management has fairly stated on instructions that Management is presently doing job work in engineering industry on a limited basis catering to needs of some other factories - In this view of the matter, court find that it would be appropriate to grant lump-sum compensation to said one and other for one year of service - In view of the above, these petitions are partly allowed - Impugned judgments of the Industrial Court/Labour Court are quashed and set aside and Management is directed to pay compensation of the amounts as mentioned to these 3 workers within a period of 12 weeks from today, failing which the said amounts shall carry interest at the rate of Rs. 6% per annum from date of the impugned judgments - pending Civil Applications, if any, do not survive hence stand disposed of – Petition allowed.
JUDGMENT :
Ravindra V. Ghuge, J.
These matters are heard at length.
2. The petitioner is aggrieved by the judgments of the Industrial Court by which the ULP complaints filed by the respondents have been allowed. The respondents/original complainants have been granted permanency in employment with all benefits. Though all of them have been working intermittently as per the appointment letters issued to them, the breaks in service of about 12 months to 3 years have been bridged by the Industrial Court, which has concluded that they have worked continuously in the employment of the petitioner industry. The petitioner contends that the impugned judgments are unsustainable.
3. In the first petition, the original complainant is Barku Zumbar Borude. Before approaching the Industrial Court by filing a complaint for seeking permanency, he had worked as per the chart supplied by him as under :-
| Sr.No. | Appointment period | Department | Designation |
| (1) | 27.5.1985 to 26.11.85 |
|
|
| (2) | 16.1.1987 to 15.8.1987 | Sp. Planning | Helper |
| (3) | 7.7.1988 to 6.2.1989 | L. Planning | Helper |
| (4) | 1.9.1989 to 28.2.1990 | L. Veh. Assly | Helper |
| (5) | 24.10.90 to 23.5.91 | L. Planning | Helper |
| (6) | 12.3.1992 to 11.8.1992 | L. Veh. Assly | Helper |
Barku therefore, worked for 38 months, intermittently in between 1985 to 1992. Since he approached the Industrial Court by filing a complaint, the petitioner Management thereafter continued him. He was given appointment orders for 3 months in 1995, 6 months in 1996, 3 months in 1997, 3 months in 2000 and 5 months in 2001. This duration is about 20 months in between 1995 to 2001. As such, the sum total of his duration of work on daily wages would be about 60 months in a period in between 1985 to 2001, which is 16 years.
4. Insofar as the second petition is concerned, the original complainant Vilas Saja Shinde had worked for the following period :-
| Sr.No. | Appointment period | Department | Designation |
| 1 | 8.2.1986 to 7.7.1986 | M/c Shop | Helper |
| 2. | 17.9.1989 to 16.4.1990 | L-Plaint Shop | Helper |
| 3. | 15.11.1990 to 14.4.1991 | L-Planning | Helper |
| 4. | 14.4.1991 to 14.6.1991 | --''-- | --''-- |
| 5. | 26.3.1992 to 25.6.1992 | Quality Control | --''-- |
| 6. | 8.5.1995 to 7.8.1995 | Plaint shop | --''-- |
| 7. | 7.8.1995 to 7.12.1995 | --''-- | --''-- |
This duration comes to about 30 months in between 1986 to 1995 ( 10 years ).
5. In the third petition, the original complainant Gangaram Pandurang Agarkar has received eight appointment orders and the Industrial Court has recorded that on each occasion he had worked for 6 months. He had initially approached the Labour Court by filing Complaint (ULP) No. 44/1995 alleging oral termination on 19/06/1995. He had contended that he was working continuously from December-1985 to June-1995. The documents on record, specifically assessed by the Court, indicate that he had received eight appointment orders and had worked for 6 months under each appointment order. The Labour Court had granted reinstatement with continuity of service and had deprived him of the entire back wages. The Management as well as Gangaram approached the Industrial Court by filing revision petitions under Section 44 of the MRTU and PULP Act, 1971. By the impugned judgment, the Industrial Court dismissed both the revision petitions.
6. In view of the above, I need to consider the case of Barku and Vilas separately as the case of Agarkar is slightly different. Barku and Vilas had approached the Industrial Court seeking permanency. Both had specifically admitted their tenure of employment. They placed on record their appointment orders. The Industrial Court considered the same an
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
