BAJAJ AUTO LIMITED Vs. BHOJANE GOPINATH D

JUDGEMENT

(1.) THESE appeals by special leave have been filed by appellant- Company against judgment rendered by Aurangabad Bench of Bombay High Court in writ applications whereby Award made by Industrial Court, Aurangabad, in the individual complaints filed by respondents-workmen has been modified.

(2.) THE short facts are that the respondent-workmen. 1197 in number, who were in employment of the appellant-Company in its factory at Bajaj Nagar, Waluj, within the District of Aurangabad, filed individual complaints before the Industrial Court at Aurangabad, under Section 28 of the Maharashtra Recognition of Trade Unions and Prevention of Unfair Labour Practices Act, 1971 (hereinafter referred to as 'the 1971 Act') complaining thereunder that unfair labour practices enumerated in item Nos. 5,6,9 and 10 of Scheduled IV appended to the 1971 Act were employed by the appellant-Company in the establishment in question. According to the workmen, they were appointed as welder, fitter, turner, mechanic, helper, grinder, etc., and were working since the year 1990 and used to be granted employment in each year for about a period of seven months and expiry of the said term their services used to be discontinued, which practice went on for a period of seven years till before filing of the complaints by them in the year 1997. It was stated that a rotation system was followed by the appellant-Company whereby different set of workmen came to be appointed by rotation displacing the workmen appointed earlier which was indicative of the fact that work of permanent nature was available with the appellant-Company, but the rotational system was introduced by it with a view to deprive the workmen of rights and privileges of permanent employees so that they may not be entitled to claim benefit of permanency on completion of 240 days uninterrupted service in the aggregate in any establishment during a period of preceding twelve calendar months as envisaged under rule 4C of the Model Standing Orders which was applicable to the establishment in question.

(3.) AGGRIEVED by the aforesaid Award, five writ applications were filed before the High Court on behalf of the workmen challenging the aforesaid directions of the Industrial Court. The appellant-Company also filed a writ application challenging the directions regarding permanency and finding of the Industrial Court whereby it had come to the conclusion that the appellant-Company had employed unfair labour practice in its establishment in relation to matters enumerated in item Nos. 6 and 9 of Schedule IV. During the pendency of the writ applications, on prayer being made on behalf of the workmen, the High Court by its order dated 30th November, 2000 directed the appellant-Company to continue services of the workmen, although liberty was granted to it to terminate services of any of the workmen after observing legal requirements. but in spite of that order on 9.1.2001 the services of all the respondents-workmen were terminated. By the impugned order passed on 8.9.2001, the High Court dismissed the writ application filed on behalf of the appellant-Company, but, while upholding the finding of unfair labour practice recorded by the Industrial Court, set aside the ultimate direction given by it and found that as the termination of services of the respondents- workmen was in violation of interim order passed by the High Court on 30th November, 2000. they were entitled to restitution. In effect and substance, it was directed that the respondents-workmen shall be reinstated in service with 50% back wages from 10th January, 2001 till the date of High Court judgment. The Court further directed that the services of the respondent-workmen shall be regularised and they be made permanent from the date of filing the complaints before the Industrial Court. Challenging the aforesaid judgment, the present appeals by special leave have been filed by the appellant-Company.