RAYMOND UCO DENIM PRIVATE LTD Vs. PRAFUL WARADE

JUDGEMENT

(1.) By this petition filed under Articles 226 and 227 of the Constitution of India, the petitioner/employer has challenged the order dt. 1.1.2009 passed by the Industrial Court, Yavatmal in ULP Complaint No. 27 of 2007. By that order, while allowing the ULP Complaint filed by present respondent Nos. 1 to 53, the learned Member of Industrial Court has directed the petitioner/employer to grant permanency to the said respondents from the date after completion of three months of their appointment as a probationer and to give them all other monetary benefits and service benefits in accordance with the agreement dt. 18.2.2005, within a period of two months from the date of its order. This Court has, on 10th December, 2009, admitted the mater, granted expeditious hearing and also granted stay of coercive recovery subject to petitioner's depositing amount of difference as per the said order of the Industrial Court. Accordingly, the amount of difference has been deposited with the Registry of this Court.

(2.) It is not in dispute that the petitioner is a Company incorporated under the Companies Act, 1956 manufacturing Denim fabric. It's factory at Yavatmal has come up in 1996. Respondent Nos. 1 to 53 entered the services on 8.12.2004 as trainees, under training contracts. Forty-five out of them completed the training on 8.12.2005 and eight of them were given extension. These individual details are not very relevant for adjudication of present controversy. The trainees, after completion of training, were appointed on probation and accordingly, it is not in dispute that respondent Nos. 1 to 53 came to be appointed on probation for a period of six months. The employees completed said period satisfactorily and were also given confirmation letter by the petitioner. The appointment order given to one Praful Warade (respondent No. 1) on 23.12.2005 and thereafter, the confirmation order given to him on 17.11.2006 are produced before this Court along with Writ Petition as specimen copies.

(3.) In this background, on or about 22.3.2007, respondent Nos. 1 to 53 filed ULP Complaint No. 7 of 2007 under Sections 5, 28, 30 r/w. Sections 26 and 27 of the Maharashtra Recognition of Trade Union and Unfair Labour Practices Act, 1971 (hereinafter referred to as the MRTU and PULP Act) and invoked Item No. 9 of Scheduled IV thereof to contend that they were entitled to confirmation after completion of three months' period on probation. They relied upon the provisions of Model Standing Orders, particularly, Clause (A). They also contended that, after completion of period of six months, the employer did not pay them wages and other benefits applicable to regular and permanent employees, but continued to pay them at a lesser rate. In view of this, they sought declaration regarding indulgence in unfair labour practice with a direction to treat them as regular and permanent employees with all consequential benefits after their completion of one year's training period. They also sought a direction regarding grant of regularation and permanency after completion of a period of three months on probation after their appointment on probation upon completion of training period of one year. It is not in dispute that the learned Member of Industrial Court (respondent No. 54) has not granted declaration and direction, as sought for, in prayer Clause (iii) and there is no challenge to that part of Industrial Court's order by respondent Nos. 1 to 53. Thus, the respondents have accepted the appointment on probation after the period of training of one year.