BHARATIYA KAMGAR KARMACHARI MAHASANGH versus M/S. JET AIRWAYS LTD

Citation: [2023] 10 S.C.R. 859 · Decided: 25-07-2023 · Supreme Court of India · Bench: ABHAY S. OKA · Disposal: Appeal(s) allowed

cites 4 · see the full citation network in Lexace

Judgment (excerpt)

A
B
C
D
E
F
G
H
859
[2023] 10 S.C.R. 859 : 2023 INSC 646
BHARATIYA KAMGAR KARMACHARI MAHASANGH
v.
M/s. JET AIRWAYS LTD.
(Civil Appeal No. 4404 of 2023)
JULY 25, 2023
[ABHAY S. OKA AND SANJAY KAROL, JJ.]
Bombay Industrial Employment (Standing Orders) Rules, 1959
– Industrial Employment (Standing Orders) Act, 1946 – Appellant-
Union represents workmen temporarily engaged on a fixed-term
contract by the respondent-company – Appellant contended that
the workmen were treated as temporary despite completing 240 days
in service in terms of the Model Standing Order provided under the
Rules of 1959 and despite the nature of the work being permanent
and regular – Respondent claimed that the workers are not entitled
to permanency as per the settlement dated 02.05.2002 – Central
Government Industrial Tribunal (CGIT) rejected the demand of the
appellant for reinstatement with full back wages – High Court
confirmed the award of CGIT – Issues before the Supreme Court:
Which is the Appropriate Authority empowered to issue the Standing
Order(s) under the Industrial Employment (Standing Orders) Act,
1946 – Whether private agreement/settlement between the parties
would override the Standing Order – Held: Respondent is not, within
the meaning of s.2(b), under the control of the Central Government
– It is under the control of the State Government – Thus, Bombay
Model Standing Order would be applicable to the parties – As far
as second question is concerned, as per Bombay Model Standing
Order clauses, a workman who has worked for 240 days in an
establishment would be entitled to be made permanent, and no
settlement which abridges such a right can be agreed upon, let alone
be binding – Any agreement/contract/settlement wherein the rights
of the employees are waived off would not override the Standing
Orders – Appellant-Union entitled to all the benefits per the Bombay
Model Standing Order – Award passed by CGIT and Judgment of
High Court set aside – Appeal allowed.
859
A
B
C
D
E
F
G
H
860
SUPREME COURT REPORTS
[2023] 10 S.C.R.
Sudhir Chandra Sarkar v. Tata Iron and Steel Co. Ltd.
(1984) 3 SCC 369 : [1984] 3 SCR 325; Western India
Match Co. v. Workmen (1974) 3 SCC 330 : [1974] 1
SCR 434; Rasiklal Vaghajibhai Patel v. Ahmedabad
Municipal Corpn. (1985) 2 SCC 35 : [1985] 2 SCR
556 – relied on.
U.P. SEB v. Hari Shankar Jain (1978) 4 SCC 16 : [1979]
1 SCR 355 – referred to.
Case Law Reference
[1979] 1 SCR 355
referred to
Para 8
[1984] 3 SCR 325
relied on
Para 9
[1974] 1 SCR 434
relied on
Para 10
[1985] 2 SCR 556
relied on
Para 11
CIVIL  APPELLATE JURISDICTION: Civil Appeal No. 4404
of 2023.
From the Judgment and Order dated 10.01.2018 of the High Court
of Judicature at Bombay in WP No. 2657 of 2017.
Sanjay Singhvi, Sr. Adv., Nitin S. Tambwekar, Seshatalpa Sai
Bandaru, Advs. for the Appellant.
Ujjwal A. Rana, Himanshu Mehta, M/s. Gagrat and Co., Advs.
for the Respondent.
The Judgment of the Court was delivered by
SANJAY KAROL, J.
1. The present appeal arises out of the judgment of the High Court
of Bombay in Writ Petition No. 2657 of 2017, wherein it confirmed the
award dated 30.03.2017 passed by the Central Government Industrial
Tribunal (hereinafter referred to as ‘CGIT’) rejecting the demand of the
Appellant-Union for reinstatement with full back wages.
2. The brief facts involved in the case are as follows: The
respondent company operates a commercial airline, flying aircraft for
transporting passengers and cargo. The Appellant represents around
A
B
C
D
E
F
G
H
861
169 workmen temporarily engaged on a fixed-term contract by the
Respondent in various cadres like loader-cum-cleaners, drivers and
operators. The Appellant contends that the workmen were treated as
temporary despite completing 240 days in service in terms of the Model
Standing Order provided under the Bombay Industrial Employment
(Standing Orders) Rules, 1959 (hereinafter referred to as “Bombay
Model Standing Order”) and despite the nature of the work being
permanent and regular. The Trade Union had raised a charter of demands
which, after negotiations, resulted in a settlement dated 02.05.2002. In
the said charter of demands, Bhartiya Kamgar Sena gave up the demand
for the grant of permanency and a comprehensive settlement dated
02.05.2002 was signed as a package deal that conferred many benefits
on the workmen who gave up the said demand. The Respondent Company
claims that the workers are not entitled to permanency as per the
settlement dated 02.05.2002 entered between the Union 

Excerpt shown. Read the full judgment & AI analysis in Lexace.