GANGADHAR PILLAI versus M/S. SIEMENS LTD.

Citation: [2006] SUPP. 8 S.C.R. 900 · Decided: 10-11-2006 · Supreme Court of India · Bench: S.B. SINHA · Disposal: Dismissed

Judgment (excerpt)

A 
B 
GANGADHAR PILLAI 
v. 
MIS. SIEMENS LTD. 
NOVEMBER l 0, 2006 
[S.B. SINHA AND DAL VEER BHANDARI, JJ] 
Maharashtra Recognition of Trade Unions and Prevention of Unfair 
Labour Practices Act, 1971: 
C 
Section 26-unfair labour practice-Held, on facts, no such case made 
out. 
Respondent used to engage temporary personnel in the category of 
skilled, semi-skilled and unskilled workers. Appellant had been appointed by 
D Respondent on temporary basis for duration of the project site work and on 
completion thereof his services used to be terminated. Indisputably, Appellant 
used to be employed almost on a regular basis since 1978. Procedure followed 
for availing the services of Appellant by Respondent had been that whenever 
such contract was obtained and project work started at the instance of the 
Head Office a telegram used to be sent to him for availing his services 
E 
whereupon he was asked to join the site office. Appointment letters used to 
be issued by the said office were in a prescribed proforma, a declaration used 
to be given by the employee concerned that the contents thereof had been 
explained to him and upon understanding the same he used to put his 
signature. The appellan_t was temporarily appointed for different projects at a 
F 
G 
H 
Steel Plant which also came to an end. He filed a complaint petition before 
the Industrial Tribunal contending that Respondent herein has resorted to 
unfair labour practice within the meaning of Item No. 6 of Schedule IV of the 
Maharashtra Recognition of Trade Unions and Prevention-of Unfair Labour 
Practices Act, 1971 which was held to be not sustainable. Writ petition as 
well as an intra-court appeal was also rejected. 
Hence, this appeal 
It was contended by the appellant that he had regularly been working In 
various projects of Respondent. It was also contended that the services of 
900 
-
-
GANGA DHAR PILLAI v. SIEMENS LTD. 
901 
personnel junior to him had been regularized and despite the fact that in many A 
years he had worked for 240 days, he used to be appointed for temporar~ 
periods. According to him, the very fact that he had been working continuously 
since 1978 is itself an indicator to the fact that the job was perennial in nature~ 
It was further contended that in the instant case a skilled workman of a 
multinational corporation had been kept on temporary basis for 22 years b)I 
giving artificial breaks in service and by engaging and disengaging him on B 
regular basis. Item 6 of Schedule IV of the Act covers work of a regular or: 
perennial nature and yet the employer appointed Appellant merely on 
temporary basis. The question of temporary appointment of a project related 
work, it was urged, would not arise as: (i) the period is sufficiently large; (ii) 
Respondent gets contract on regular basis and number of days for which C 
services of the employee are taken correspond to the work of a regular 
employee is more than 240 days a year; and (iii) no explanation has bee11i 
offered b}Respondent as to why the appointments have to be of such a nature. 
It was, therefore, urged that the refuse as regards lack of qualification on 
.the part of Appellant could not have been a ground to regularize his services 
as his e},.perience for a period of 22 years had made up the lack of educational
1 D 
qualification. Finally, it was contended that assuming that the termination of 
the job was valid, Appellant could not have been denied the benefit of22 years' 
of service in the event it is held that Respondent is guilty of taking recourse 
to unfair labour practices within the meaning of the Act. 
., 
E 
It was-contended by the respondent that Appellant had never been 
~ 
' 
appointed in any continuous job and his services were taken as and when the 
same became available. The appointment letters categorically stated about the 
I 
nature of job, the period of employment and the fact that on expiry of the said 
period, his employment would come to an end. It was also stated that not only , 
the legal dues of Appellant had been paid, he had also been paid compensation F 
which has been accepted by him without any demur. 
Dismissing the appeal, the Court 
HELD 1.1 Under the provisions of the Maharashtra Recognition of Trade 
Unions and Prevention of Unfair Labour Practices Act, 1971, only because 'G 
an employee has been engaged as a casual or temporary employee or that he 
had been employed for a number of years, the same by itself may not lead to · 
the

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