HINDUSTAN LEVER LIMITED Vs. HINDUSTAN LEVER EMPLOYEES UNION

JUDGEMENT

(1.) THE petitioners, a multi national company and enlightened management, are aggrieved by the order dated 20th February, 1997 passed by the Industrial Court, Maharashtra at Mumbai in Complain (U. L. P.) No. 625 of 1987 filed by the union mainly for getting the services of about 22 watchmen regularised in employment. The union filed the said complaint under Items 5, 6 and 9 of Schedule IV of the M. R. T. U. and P. U. L. P. Act on the ground that the aforesaid 22 watchmen were in employment of the petitioner company at its various places from 1982 onwards continuously. In fact, one of these watchman had joined as back as on 12th November 1962. There is no dispute about the dates of joining which are given by the union in the Annexures A, B and C in the complaint filed by it. One watchman had joined on 16th March, 1982 while the others had joined in the year 1983, 84, and 87. In view of the aforesaid facts that some of them had joined had put in atleast more than 240 days continuous service as on the date of the complaint filed on 2nd July, 1987, the union prayed for a declaration that the petitioner had engaged in unfair labour practices and for a direction to the petitioner to cease and desist from engaging in such a unfair labour practice and for direction to regularise the said watchmen as permanent watchman employed in the petitioner company.

(2.) THE petitioner company filed its written statement and opposed the complaint denying that any unfair labour practice, as complained of, by the union was practised by the company. The main defence of the petitioner company was that the watchmen/security guards were engaged through the two contractors named in the complaint. According to the company, therefore, they were the contract labour engaged through the aforesaid contractors and the company had no employer employee relationship of whatsoever nature and that they had no control and supervision over them. It was further pointed out by the company that pursuant to the judgment of the Supreme Court in the matter of (Security Guards Board for Bombay and Thane v. S. C. P. Services Pvt. Ltd.), A. I. R. 1987 S. C. 1370 all the aforesaid watchmen had registered themselves as the Security Guards in the month of July 1987 and therefore, they cannot seek any appointment much less permanency or regularisation with the company. The company further pleaded that the aforesaid watchmen/security guards were fully controlled by the Security Guards Board and they were paid their wages by the Board and therefore, they had ceased to be even the employees of the contractor and as such there is no question of any unfair labour practice being adopted by the petitioner company. In short, the petitioner company disowned any liabilities to regularise them in their employment.

(3.) BOTH the parties adduced oral and documentary evidence before the Industrial Court. After hearing the parties, the learned Member of the Industrial Court by the impugned order directed the petitioner to classify the watchmen mentioned in the Annexures A, B and C with the complaint, as permanent workman of the company and to grant them wages, privileges and benefits applicable to other watchmen from the date of filing of the complaint i. e. 2nd July, 1987.