Bombay High Court
Comunity Devt.Trust.Asha Kendre vs Sarva Shrami Sangh on 20 July, 2016
Bench: R.V. Ghuge
WP/5827/1995
1
IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE OF BOMBAY
BENCH AT AURANGABAD
WRIT PETITION NO. 5827 OF 1995
Community Development Trust
Asha Kendra, Puntamba,
Tq.Kopargaon, Dist. Ahmednagar. ..Petitioner
Versus
Sarva Shramik Sangh,
Tilak Road, Ahmednagar,
(Through it's Secretary). ..Respondent
ig ...
Advocate for Petitioner : Shri C.V.Korhalkar
Advocate for Respondent : Shri B.B.Yenge
...
CORAM : RAVINDRA V. GHUGE, J.
Dated: July 20, 2016
...
ORAL JUDGMENT:-
1. 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.
2. I have heard the learned Advocates.
3. 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
WP/5827/1995
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.
6. 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.
7. 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.
8. The Industrial Court has observed from paragraph No.10
WP/5827/1995
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 abovesaid 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.
9.
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.
10. In so far as the direction of the Industrial Court to pay
compensation of Rs.7,000/- to these four employees towards arrears
and backwages 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.
WP/5827/1995
11. 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 given 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.
12. Item 6 of Schedule V of the 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.
13. As such, the direction to pay compensation by the industrial
WP/5827/1995
Court is set aside only to the extent of Ramesh Vishnu Bhoir.
14. 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.
15. Rule is made partly absolute in the above terms.
( RAVINDRA V. GHUGE, J. )
...
akl/d
