The main legal point established in the judgment is that the workmen were entitled to permanency benefits and that the Tribunal had jurisdiction to entertain the complaint, which fell under Items 6 and 9 of Schedule IV of the Act of 1971.

JUDGMENT :

N.B. Suryawanshi, J.

1. Rule. Rule made returnable forthwith. Heard with the consent of parties.

2. This petition takes exception to the judgment and order passed by Industrial Tribunal, Jalna, in Complaint (ULP) No. 112/2017, thereby allowing the complaint.

3. The facts in brief, without unnecessary details are as follows:-

The Petitioner is a company registered under the Companies Act, 1956 and is engaged in the manufacturing process of automotive chains, sprockets and chain tensioners under popular brand name 'ROLON'. The Petitioner also manufactures Fine Blanked Products and Precision Machined Gears and Parts. Many workers are employed by the Petitioner to carry out its day to day production activity. The factory of the Petitioner was established in November-2014 and the production activities were commenced on 16.01.2015.

4. The Respondent workmen filed Complaint (ULP) No. 112/2017 contending that they are workmen and the Petitioner is an industry within the meaning of Section 2(s) and (j) of the Industrial Disputes Act, 1947 (for short 'Act of 1947') and service conditions of the employees are governed by Model Standing Orders (1950) framed under the Industrial Employment (Standing Orders) Act, 1946 (for short 'MSO'). The respondents contended that taking into consideration their education in the technical field and work experience, they were appointed as trainees on 26.12.2015, for a period of two years on fixed monthly wages of 8550/-. At the time of appointment they were assured that after completion of two years service they will be confirmed by issuing probationer letter. They performed regular work in relation to the production activities. They completed training period satisfactorily. However, though permanent posts were available, not a single employee was made permanent by the Petitioner. The workmen are discharging regular work in connection with production activities by following instructions of supervisor. Since joining they were not provided any trainer and they have independently worked as skilled labours for more than eight hours. They have completed 240 days continue service in each calendar year, and more particularly in the preceding year of the date of filing complaint. They are working against permanent vacant posts without any break. It is further contended that the Petitioner appoints workers as trainees and after their completion of training period the Petitioner appoints new workers thereby not making any employee permanent. Though requests were made, permanency was not given to the workmen. The workmen were made to sign documents under coercion. The Petitioner, therefore has indulged in unfair labour practices under Item 6 and 9 and 10 of Schedule IV of Maharashtra Recognition of Trade Unions and Prevention of Unfair Labor Laws Practices Act 1971 (for short 'Act of 1971').

5. By filing written statement, the Petitioner raised preliminary objection as to the maintainability of the complaint by contending that the respondents are not workmen within the meaning of Section 2(s) of Act of 1947 and under Section 3(5) of Act of 1971. The respondents accepted the terms and conditions mentioned in their appointment letters, according to which they have to undergo two years training period. They were paid stipend during the said period. If, during training period the performance appraisal of the respondents is not found satisfactory then the Petitioner has a right to terminate their services without issuing notice. On completion of training period, the Petitioner is not bound to absorb the respondents for regular employment. The Respondents have not right to claim permanency, as on the date of filing of the complaint. The Respondents appeared in the examination conducted by the Petitioner on 14.11.2014 and the result of the said examination is awaited within 2-3 days and the decision of taking on probation is likely to be taken within 4-5 days, as the training period of respondents is ending on 25.12.20