LexBAJAJ AUTO LTD. versus BHOJANE GOPINATH D. AND ORS.
Open in Lexace · Ask the AI about this caseJudgment (excerpt)
A. BAJAJ AUTO LTD. v. BHOJANE GOPINATH D. AND ORS. DECEMBER 17, 2003 B [Y.K. SABHARWAL AND B.N. AGRAWAL, JJ.] Labour Laws : Maharashtra Recognition of Trade Unions and Prevention of Unfair C · Labuor Practices Act, 1971-Sections 28, 30 and 3(18), Schedule IV item Nos. 6 and 9-fndustrial Employment (Standing Orders) Act, 1946- Sections 3, JO and 13(1)-lndustrial Employment (Standing Orders) Central Rules, 1946-Industrial Employment (Standing Orders) Act, 1946 as amended by State Legislature-Sections 2A(J), 3 and 13(1}-Bombay D Industrial Employment (Standing Orders) Rules, 1959-Rule 4C-Indus- trial establishment within the State of Maharashtra-Complaint alleging that Company appointing workmen for less than 240 days and thereafter replacing them by different set of workers to deprive them benefit of permanency on completion of 240 days uninterrupted service in a year as E envisaged under Rule 4C-Cmnpany contending that in the Certified Standing Order there is no provision akin to Rule 4C-Industrial Court held unfair labour practice under item Nos. 6 and 9 and directed company to absorb all complainants and make them permanent-Writ applications- Interim order by High Court directing Company to continue services of workrnen, though liberty granted to terminate their services after observing F legal requirements-Termination of services of all workmen-High Court upheld finding of Industrial Court regarding unfair labour practice but set aside the direction and also held that termination of services of workmen was in violation of interim order and directed that such workmen should be ;·einstated with 50% back wages-On appeal held : Model Standing G Orders are ipso facto applicable to establishment within State of Maharashtra as notified by State Government-Though it is optional for workmen to submit draft to Certifying Officer for amendment but no amendment which has the ejfeCt of deleting or omitting any of the rule in the Model Standing Orders can be sought-Also Rule 4C has been H fncorporated relating to matter set out in 10-C of Schedule, deletion of the 958 BAJAJ AUTO LTD. v. B.G.D. 959 same would be without jurisdiction, null and void-Further, finding of A Industrial Court regarding unfair trade pactice under item 6 recorded on sufficient evidence-High Court justified in not inte1fering with it-Interim order passed by High Court not an award-Hence no unfair labour practice under item 9-0n facts and circumstances not a fit case for reinstatement of workmen, with payment of 50% back wages-However, B workmen entitled to reasonable amount of compensation in terms of Section 30(1)(b) of the Act. Respondent-workmen were in employed in the appellant-Com- pany within the State of Maharashtra. They filed complaints alleging C unfair labour practices. It was alleged that the appellant appointed temporary workers for period less than 240 days and thereafter replaced them by different set of workmen to deprive them the benefit of permanency on completion of 240 days uninterrupted service in the aggregate in any establishment during a period of preceding twelve calendar months as envisaged under Rule 4C of the Model Standing D Orders. Appellant-Company took the stand that there was no provision akin to Rule 4C in the Certified Standing Orders. Industrial Court held that there was no unfair labour practice as enumerated in Item Nos. 5 and 10 but under Item Nos. 6 and 9 of Schedule IV appended to the Maharashtra Recognition of Trade Unions and Prevention of Unfair E Labour Practices Act, 1971 and directed the appellant-Company to absorb all the temporary employee-complainants in employment as per seniority, make them permanent and still if there is neecl then engage temporary worker:.. Parties filed writ applications. During the pendency of the applications, High Court directed the appellant- F . Company to continue services of the workmen, granting liberty to terminate services of any of the workmen after observing legal requirements. However the services of all the respondent-workmen were terminated. High Court upheld the finding of unfair labour practice recorded by the Industrial Court but set aside the direction given by the Industrial Court and held that the termination of services G of the respondent-workmen was in violation of interim order passed by the High Court and as such the respondents be reinstated in service with 50% back wages. Hence the present
Excerpt shown. Read the full judgment & AI analysis in Lexace.