BURROUGHS WELCOME I LIMITED Vs. D H GHOSLE

JUDGEMENT

(1.) THESE two petitions, challenge the validity of an order passed by the Industrial Court in a Complaint, being Complaint (U. L. P.) No. 834 of 1996, filed by 17 employees under the provisions of the Maharashtra Recognition of Trade Unions and Prevention of Unfair Labour Practices Act, 1971 ("the Act" ). In Writ Petition No. 1661 of 2000, the petitioner before the Court is the employer, while in the companion petition, being Writ Petition (Lodging) No. 1628 of 2000, the petitioners before the Court are the 17 employees. The employer is aggrieved by the direction to the effect that the complainant-employees be absorbed in service within two years as permanent employees. The employees are aggrieved by the finding of the Labour Court, that there was no unfair labour practice committed by the employer specifically in keeping the workers as temporary employees for several years. The complaint before the Industrial Court was filed with reference to Items 6, 9 and 10 of Schedule IV of the Act, and has been disposed of by the Judgment dated 27th June, 2000 of the Industrial Court which is impugned in these proceedings.

(2.) ON 12th August, 1996, the respondents (in the first petition) filed a complaint in the Industrial Court. Briefly stated, the complaint recites that the petitioner is a manufacturer of pharmaceutical products ranging from Septran to Sudafed, from Neosporin powder to Eye and Ear Drops. The complainants before the Industrial Court stated that they were working with the employer since 1983. For nearly 12 years they had been asked to work as casuals or temporary employees and they were being exploited. The work which was done by them was the same job and work which was also done by permanent employees. The complainants stated and this appears to have been an admitted position as the evidence would disclose, that while the complainants were paid Rs. 1500/- per month, the permanent workman doing jobs of the same kind or of a similar nature were drawing about Rs. 4,500/- per month. The complainants stated that they were denied the benefits and facilities provided to permanent workmen though they had been working for years together. They were given artificial breaks in service merely in order to ensure that they should not make a claim for permanency. In these circumstances, it was alleged that the employer had committed a breach of Item 6 of Schedule IV of the Act. The conduct of the employer in not paying the workers the same wages and benefits as allowed to permanent workmen, was alleged to constitute a breach of the provisions of Items 9 and 10 of Schedule IV of the Act. In the context of these factual averments, a declaration that the employer had been indulging in an unfair labour practice and a direction to cease and desist therefrom, was prayed for. Exhibit-A to the complaint contains the dates, with reference to each employee, since when he had been working with the employer as a temporary employee. These dates range from 1983 in the case of 5 employees, 1984 in the case of 8 employees and 1986 in the case of 4 employees.

(3.) THE employer filed a Written Statement denying that the workmen had been employed as casuals or temporaries with the object of depriving them of the status and privileges of permanent employees. The case of the employer on affidavit was that the workmen had been employed from time to time to meet temporary increases in the sales demand of the products of the Company. According to the employer, this demand may be due to general ill-health amongst the masses during a particular season on account of "climate change, breaking of any epidemic etc. " In other words, the defence was that temporary man power was employed for a specific period to meet the exigencies of work and the sanction for the employment of such temporary workers was granted by the Company for a specified period upon the requisition of a concerned department. The employer contended that between 1982 and 1995, 78 workmen who had earlier worked as temporaries have been absorbed as permanent workers and the Company had, since its inception, regularised the services of 256 workmen. As regards the grievance of the workers that they have been deprived of the benefits payable to permanent workers, it was stated that permanent workers are governed by the Settlements which do not apply to the temporary workmen.