Community Development Trust vs Sarva Shramik Sangh

Ravindra V. Ghuge, J.(Oral)—This petition was on the final hearing board on 18.6.2016. Since none appeared for the petitioner, the matter was adjourned to enable the petitioner to address the Court.

I have heard the learned Advocates.

The petitioner is aggrieved by the judgment dated 7.9.1995, by which, the Industrial Court, Ahmednagar has allowed Complaint (ULP) No. 241 of 1987. The respondent / four employees, who were represented by the Union, namely, Bhaskar Ranu Thorat, Madhukar Ranu Thorat, Nandkumar Dhondopant Ratnaparakhe and Ramesh Vishnu Bhoir, whose names are at Sr. Nos.1, 3, 4 and 7 in Annexure "A", were granted permanency and benefits incidental thereto. The petitioner was directed to pay Rs. 7,000/- to each of these four employees as compensation. The rest of the employees mentioned in Annexure "A" have not been granted permanency.

When this Court heard this matter on 20.12.1995, ad-interim relief in terms of prayer cause "E" was granted only to the extent of the direction of the Industrial Court that the petitioner should pay Rs. 7,000/- each. By order dated 23.2.1996, this Court recorded the statement of the petitioner that two employees have already been absorbed as permanent employees and steps would be taken within four weeks to absorb the remaining two. An undertaking duly affirmed by the petitioner, dated 23.2.1996 was taken on record.

I have gone through the memo of the petition put-forth by the petitioner and the impugned judgment. Annexure "A" to the complaint indicates that the respondent / Union was espousing the cause of nine employees. The Industrial Court granted permanency to the four employees mentioned above. The remaining five employees have been denied permanency and benefits incidental thereto.

The Industrial Court has observed from paragraph No.10 onwards that the petitioner is an "industry" and the four employees mentioned above, were held entitled for permanency. The contention of the petitioner before the Industrial Court that it never intends to remove the above said four employees and they have been working for quite some time was recorded in paragraph No.12 of the judgment. Rest of the employees were held dis-entitled considering the oral and documentary evidence on record.

In the light of the above and taking into account the directions of this Court, dated 20.12.1995 and 23.2.1996, I do not find any reason to interfere with the directions of the Industrial Court granting permanency and benefits consequential thereto to the four employees mentioned above.

In so far as the direction of the Industrial Court to pay compensation of Rs. 7,000/- to these four employees towards arrears and back-wages is concerned, the Industrial Court has observed that the permanency is being granted from the date of the judgment and hence the pendency of the complaint from 1987 till 1995 and benefits for this period could be converted into lump sum compensation of Rs. 7,000/- to each of these employees. Annexure "A" to the complaint indicates that the employees, namely, B.R. Thorat, M.R. Thorat, N.D. Ratnaparakhe and R.V. Bhoir were working from 1.5.1983, July 1983, 5.5.1984 and 30.6.1986, respectively.

The concept of completion of 240 days leading to deemed confirmation flows from Section 4C and 4D of the Industrial Employment Standing Orders Act, 1946. The said Act is applicable to such industrial establishments, which engage 50 or more workmen. Besides stating in the complaint that there are about 20-30 employees in the staff category, there is no statement to suggest that the petitioner was engaging 50 employees at any give point in time. Standing Orders Act, 1946 would, therefore, not be applicable to the petitioner unless and until it is proved that there were 50 workmen or more in the petitioner industry.

Item 6 of Schedule V of the Maharashtra Recognition of Trade Unions and Prevention of Unfair Labour Practices Act, 1971 ("the said Act ") defines "ULP" to mean that the employer has continued workers as daily wagers for years together in order to deprive them of the benefits of permanency. As on date of the filing of the complaint, three of the workers, who were granted permanency, have been working from 1983 and one worker has been working from 1986. Considering this position, I do not find that Ramesh Vishnu Bhoir could be said to be working for years together as on date of the filing of the complaint.

As such, the direction to pay compensation by the industrial Court is set aside only to the extent of Ramesh Vishnu Bhoir.

This petition is, therefore, partly allowed only to the extent of setting aside the direction for payment of Rs. 7,000/- to Shri Ramesh Vishnu Bhoir. The rest of the impugned judgment dated 7.9.1995 is sustained.

Rule is made partly absolute in the above terms.