AI Structured Summary
Not yet generated for this judgment
Judgment
Subhash B. Adi, J.
Petition allowed
This Writ Petition is by the Management, questioning the order of the second respondent in No. SOA/CR-18/2010-11 dated May 2, 2012 produced at Annexure-N. Union of Badli workers had filed a complaint dated 22.3.2011 inter alia alleging the violation of the Standing Order Clause 3 sub-clause (6), 3 and 15, alleging that, there are about more than 300 Badli workers working in the petitioner - industry, instead of regularising their services, the Management has indulged in making direct recruitment of inexperienced persons; Management is not making the payment for whole time; Management is not providing EX. to such Badli employees, who had completed 240 days of continuous service in a year. As such, the Management has violated the Standing Orders Clause 3 sub-clause (6), 13 and 15.
The claim petition was opposed by filing objections inter alia stating that, there is no violation of any of the Standing Order, in turn, 55 Badli workers on roll of the Company have been placed under training and two are under process. Badli workers, who had completed 240 days, have been provided E.L. and Badli workers, who had worked overtime, have been paid O.T. wages. However, the second respondent by the impugned order held that, there is a violation and ordered for prosecution.
It is against the said order, the Management is before this Court.
Sri. S.N. Murthy, learned Senior Counsel appearing for the petitioner submitted that, Clause 3 sub-clause (6) does not automatically confer any right on the Badli worker for regularisation, it only provides for giving preference to the Badli workers in case of permanent vacancies and same has been complied i.e., as and when the vacancy arises, preference is given to the Badli workers. He also submitted that, in respect of Badli worker, who had completed 240 days in a year, has been granted E.L. and the Badli worker, who has worked overtime, has been paid double wages. But the Management cannot be compelled that every Badli worker should be given O.T., Management cannot be compelled that, every Badli worker should be regularised and Management cannot be compelled to grant E.L. to Badli workers, who have not completed 240 days in a year and submitted that, in reply to the same, by Annexure-G, the Management has agreed to comply with all these conditions.
On the other hand, Sri. D. Leelakrishnan, learned Counsel appearing for the respondent -Union submitted that, though there are more than 300 Badli workers, the Management is not taking steps to regularise their services. Even in case of some of them, who have been regularised, they have been put in another category of training. He submitted that, O.T. is required to be given under Clause 13, same is also not extended to the Badli workers and the E.L. to which Badli worker is entitled, if he has completed 240 days in a year, that is also not given to the Badli worker.
The Management has not disputed that the Badli workers have to be preferred in case of appointment against permanent vacancies. Clause 3 sub-clause (6), which defines "Badli Worker'' does not confer automatic right on the Badli worker for regularisation, but it provides for preference in consideration. Giving preference in consideration does not create a right by itself to be absolved automatically, if there is violation by the Company in not giving preference, certainly it may warrant an action, but the Management has stated that, it is giving preference. Suppose, if there is any dispute as regard to giving preference, then it is a matter for adjudication.
As far as the O.T. is concerned, if the O.T. is provided, the Management is liable to pay the double/extra wages as per the Standing Orders and if there is an overtime work is available, the Management cannot deny the same to the Badli workers. However, if there is no O.T. and if there is no work available, there is no reason to grant O.T. to Badli workers. Similarly, if the Badli worker, who has completed 240 days in a year, he is entitled for E.L., it is also admitted by the Management.
If the Management is agreeing to comply with the said condition, I find no violation and admittedly, neither the Management nor the Union has placed any material before the second respondent pointing out any violation with reference to any instances. Unless such instances of violation are pointed out with reference to the material, it cannot be straightaway alleged that there is a violation.
Apart from this, with certain issues relating to the same, matter is now pending under reference before the competent Labour Court, as such, I do not find that there is any violation of the Standing Order at this stage. If there is any instances of violation, the respondent - Union is at liberty to file complaint supported by evidence and second respondent, if on enquiry satisfied that there is violation, he may take action in accordance with the provisions of the Industrial Disputes Act.
In view of the same, I find no material to hold that there is any violation of Standing Orders by the Management. Apart from this, Sri. S.N. Murthy, learned Senior Counsel submitted that, the Management is bound to obey the Standing Orders and there is no violation of the Standing Orders. Placing the said submission on record, I find that the writ petition is required to be allowed.
Accordingly, the writ petition is allowed, the impugned order dated May 2, 2012 produced at Annexure-N, is hereby quashed.