1995 (7) TMI 436 - HC - Indian Laws

Summary

Issues Involved:
1. Whether the petitioner was a permanent employee.
2. Whether the termination of the petitioner's service was illegal.
3. Whether the petitioner was entitled to reinstatement with full back wages.
4. Whether the petitioner was treated as a permanent employee upon reinstatement.
5. Whether the petitioner was entitled to permanency after completing 240 days of service.
6. Whether the complaint was barred by limitation.
7. Whether the first respondent engaged in unfair labour practices.

Issue-Wise Detailed Analysis:

1. Whether the petitioner was a permanent employee:
The petitioner contended that he was a permanent employee whose service was terminated illegally. The Industrial Court, in its order dated 30th January 1987, concluded that the petitioner was not employed temporarily for a specific task, as claimed by the first respondent, but was a permanent employee. This finding was based on the lack of evidence from the first respondent to prove the temporary nature of the petitioner's employment.

2. Whether the termination of the petitioner's service was illegal:
The Industrial Court upheld the Labour Court's decision that the termination of the petitioner's service on 1st January 1981 was illegal, as it violated Section 25-F of the Industrial Disputes Act, 1947. The Court rejected the first respondent's defense that the petitioner was a temporary worker hired for a specific job that had ended.

3. Whether the petitioner was entitled to reinstatement with full back wages:
The Labour Court had directed the reinstatement of the petitioner with continuity of service and full back wages, a decision affirmed by the Industrial Court. The petitioner was reinstated on 6th April 1987, but not as a permanent employee, which led to further legal action.

4. Whether the petitioner was treated as a permanent employee upon reinstatement:
Despite the Industrial Court's order, the first respondent continued to treat the petitioner as a temporary worker. The petitioner filed Complaint (ULP) No. 342 of 1988, arguing that his status as a permanent employee had already been adjudicated. The Industrial Court, however, dismissed this complaint, leading to the present writ petition.

5. Whether the petitioner was entitled to permanency after completing 240 days of service:
The petitioner argued that he should be deemed permanent after completing 240 days of continuous service, as per Model Standing Order 4-C and an agreement between the representative union and the Mill Owners' Association. The Industrial Court dismissed this claim, but the High Court found that the petitioner's permanency was implied in the earlier Industrial Court order, which had rejected the temporary employment defense.

6. Whether the complaint was barred by limitation:
The Industrial Court did not raise any issue regarding the tenability or limitation of the complaint in its proceedings. The High Court noted that the first respondent did not contest the maintainability of the complaint on these grounds in their written arguments.

7. Whether the first respondent engaged in unfair labour practices:
The High Court found that the first respondent engaged in unfair labour practices by not granting the petitioner permanency and the consequential benefits, as mandated by the Industrial Court's order dated 30th January 1987.

Conclusion:
The High Court allowed the writ petition, quashing the Industrial Court's order dated 22nd October 1993. It held that the petitioner was entitled to reinstatement as a permanent employee from 30th January 1987 and that the first respondent had engaged in unfair labour practices. The petitioner, having retired on 15th July 1991, was entitled to monetary benefits accruing from his status as a permanent employee, to be paid within three months, failing which they would carry simple interest at 12% per annum. The first respondent was also ordered to pay the costs of the writ petition, quantified at Rs. 500.