BHARATIYA KAMGAR KARMACHARI MAHASANGH Vs. JET AIRWAYS LTD

JUDGEMENT

(1.) The present appeal arises out of the judgment of the High Court of Bombay in Writ Petition No. 2657 of 2017, wherein it confirmed the award dtd. 30/3/2017 passed by the Central Government Industrial Tribunal (hereinafter referred to as 'CGIT') rejecting the demand of the Appellant-Union for reinstatement with full back wages.

(2.) The brief facts involved in the case are as follows: The respondent company operates a commercial airline, flying aircraft for transporting passengers and cargo. The Appellant represents around 169 workmen temporarily engaged on a fixed-term contract by the Respondent in various cadres like loader-cumcleaners, drivers and operators. The Appellant contends that the workmen were treated as temporary despite completing 240 days in service in terms of the Model Standing Order provided under the Bombay Industrial Employment (Standing Orders) Rules, 1959 (hereinafter referred to as "Bombay Model Standing Order") and despite the nature of the work being permanent and regular. The Trade Union had raised a charter of demands which, after negotiations, resulted in a settlement dtd. 2/5/2002. In the said charter of demands, Bhartiya Kamgar Sena gave up the demand for the grant of permanency and a comprehensive settlement dtd. 2/5/2002 was signed as a package deal that conferred many benefits on the workmen who gave up the said demand. The Respondent Company claims that the workers are not entitled to permanency as per the settlement dtd. 2/5/2002 entered between the Union and Company. The workmen raised disputes and the matter landed up for adjudication. However, the CGIT, in its award dtd. 30/3/2017, while answering a reference framed the issue, whether the Union's demand for re-employment /reinstatement with full back wages of these 169 workmen in service of that first party is just and proper and answered it in the negative. Relying upon Sec. 25-H of the Industrial Disputes Act, 1947 it was held that there is no retrenchment since the nonrenewal of fixed term contract did not amount it to be so as provided under Sec. 2(oo)(bb) of the said Act. Thus, there was no question of re-employment of the concerned workmen. OPINION OF THIS COURT

(3.) After hearing learned counsel of the parties at great length, the following issues arise for our consideration: