9911796707
TMI Blog2006 (11) TMI 725X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... nted by 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. His services were availed by Respondent not only for its various projects in India but also in Iraq. 3. 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 whereupon he was asked to join the site office. Appointment letters used to be issued by the said office were in a prescribed proforma, the relevant portion from a sample copy whereof reads as under: LETTER OF APPOINTMENT FOR TEMPORARY PERSONNEL Name : Mrs. R. Gangadharan Pillai Roll No. : 133 Local Address : Room No. 148/4, Indhira Nagar, Chambur, Bombay-74 Permanent Address : Saraswati Vilasm Ezhlcon P.O. Anitose, Kerala Date of Birth : 22 Years Consolidated salary/Wages per Month : 200/- Date of Joining : 22.5.78 Type of Employment : Helper Dear Sir, We have pleasure in appointing you on the terms mentioned above and cond ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... s miserably failed to prove that the break in two appointments of the Complainant was artificial break . The appointment letter placed on file manifest that the engagement of the Complainant was for a specific period as mentioned therein. Therefore, in my considered view, the substantial controversy emerging from the instant complaint has been in respect of alleged illegality on the part of Respondent company in terminating his services from 10.05.2000 It further came to the conclusion that the substantial controversy revolved round the termination of Appellant's services on 10.5.2000 and, thus, the same is required to be considered in terms of Item 1 of Schedule IV of the Act and not under Item 9 of Schedule IV thereof. It was observed: I may observe that the Complainant could have taken recourse to Section 32 of the M.R.T.U. P.U.L.P Act, to make prayer before this Court to decide the controversy pertaining to his alleged illegal termination of service dated 10.05.2000, had his services been terminated by the Respondent company pending the complaint under items 5,6 and 9 of Schedule IV for redressal of his grievances of giving permanency in the employment. However, admittedly ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... rned Single Judge had analysed the order passed by the Industrial Court and has observed as under: The Industrial Court, after hearing the parties on analysis of the materials on record while dismissing the complaint, has held that what has been reiterated in the complaint was that the complainant was engaged at various sites of the respondents after giving artificial breaks in the service. Then, the learned Single Judge has given a finding that in such circumstances, there is no question of adoption of an unfair labour practice and, therefore, declined to interfere under Article 227 of the Constitution. That being so, the Letters Patent Appeal, obviously, is not tenable. Even otherwise, we see no fault with the order impugned 9. Mr. Colin Gonsalves, learned senior counsel appearing on behalf of Appellant, in support of this appeal would contend that in the instant case a skilled workman of a multinational corporation had been kept on temporary basis for 22 years by giving artificial breaks in service and by engaging and disengaging him on regular basis. Item 6 of Schedule IV of the Act, it was submitted, covers work of a regular or perennial nature and yet the employer appointed A ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... t to mean all the practices listed in Schedules II, III and IV. Section 27 of the Act prohibits engagement of an employee by any employer or union in any unfair labour practice. Section 28 provides for procedure for dealing with complaints relating thereto. Schedule IV of the Act enumerates general unfair labour practices on the part of the employers. Clause 6 of Schedule IV of the Act reads as under: 6. To employ employee as badlis , casuals or temporaries and to continue them as such for years, with the object of depriving them of the status and privileges of permanent employees. 12. The question as to whether an employee had intermittently been engaged as casual or temporary for a number of years is essentially a question of fact. The issue as to whether unfair labour practices had been resorted to by the employer or not must be judged from the entirety of the circumstances brought on records by the parties. Only because 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 conclusion that such appointment had been made with the object of depriving him of the status and privilege ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... to for defrauding an employee. The object of such temporary employment was bona fide and not to deprive the concerned employee from the benefit of a permanent status. We, having regard to the fact situation obtaining herein, cannot infer that the findings of the Tribunal as also the learned Single Judge of the High Court were manifestly erroneous warranting exercise of our extraordinary jurisdiction under Article 136 of the Constitution of India. 15. It is not the law that on completion of 240 days of continuous service in a year, the concerned employee becomes entitled to for regularization of his services and/ or permanent status. The concept of 240 days in a year was introduced in the industrial law for a definite purpose. Under the Industrial Disputes Act, the concept of 240 days was introduced so as to fasten a statutory liabilities upon the employer to pay compensation to be computed in the manner specified in Section 25-F of the Industrial Disputes Act, 1947 before he is retrenched from services and not for any other purpose. In the event a violation of the said provision takes place, termination of services of the employee may be found to be illegal, but only on that accoun ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... due thought to the aforesaid rival contentions and, according to us, the object of the State Act, inter alia, being prevention of certain unfair labour practices, the same would be thwarted or get frustrated if such a burden is placed on a workman which he cannot reasonably discharge. In our opinion, it would be permissible on facts of a particular case to draw the inference mentioned in the second part of the item, if badlis, casuals or temporaries are continued as such for years. We further state that the present was such a case inasmuch as from the materials on record we are satisfied that the 25 workmen who went to the Industrial Court of Pune (and 15 to the Industrial Court, Ahmednagar) had been kept as casuals for long years with the primary object of depriving them of the status of permanent employees inasmuch as giving of this status would have required the employer to pay the workmen at a rate higher than the one fixed under the Minimum Wages Act. We can think of no other possible object as, it may be remembered, that the Pachgaon Parwati Scheme was intended to cater to the recreational and educational aspirations also of the populace, which are not ephemeral objects, but ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... a view to defeat the object of the Act. Section 2(oo)(bb) of the Industrial Disputes Act, 1947, therefore, is not attracted in the instant case. Unlike the Act, there is no provision for prevention of unfair labour practices under the Industrial Disputes Act. The view of the High Court as upheld by this Court, merely negatived a contention that such appointment came within the purview of Section 2(oo)(bb) of the Industrial Disputes Act. This Court noticed various decisions rendered by it as regards payment of backwages and in stead and place of reinstatement in service, compensation was directed to be paid. In Buddhi Nath Chaudhary and Ors. v. Abahi Kumar and Ors. : [2001] 2 SCR 18 wherein again reliance has been placed by the learned Counsel, has no application in the facts and circumstances of this case. We, therefore, do not find any reason to differ with the findings of the High Court. 21. We may, however, notice that this Court by an order dated 12.5.2006 observed: It is seen from the papers placed before us that the worker, the petitioner herein, was in employment with the respondent M/s. Siemens Ltd. from 22/5/1978 to 10.5.2000. The chart has also been placed before us show ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X
|
