REGENT COMPUTRONICS PVT. LTD.

R.P.SAWANT Appellant

V/S

BAJAJ AUTO LIMITED Respondents

Referred Judgements :-

ALEXANDER RODGER CHARLES CARNIE V. THE COMPTOIR DESC OMPTE DE PARIS [REFERRED TO]
BOROSIL GLASS WORKS LTD V. MG CHITALE [REFERRED TO]
KC CO-OPERATIVE BANK LTD V. PRESIDING OFFICER,LABOUR COURT [REFERRED TO]
GENERAL WORKERS UNION V. SANQLI MUNICIPAL COUNCIL [REFERRED TO]
SG CHEMICALS AND DYES TRADING EMPLOYEES UNION V. SG CHEMICALS AND DYES TRADING LTD [REFERRED TO]
THE PREMIER AUTOMOBILES LTD V. THE ENGINEERING MAZDOOR SABHA [REFERRED TO]
LOKMAT NEWSPAPERS P LTD V. SHANKARPRASAD [REFERRED TO]
JAI BERHAM V. KEDAR NATH MARWARI [REFERRED TO]
THE MAHARASHTRA STATE CO-OPERATIVE COTTON GROWERS MARKETING FEDERATION V. SHRIPATI PANDURANG KHADE [REFERRED TO]
PRATIBHA SAMBAJI KUBAL V. RAVINDRA HINDUSTAN PLATINUM PVT LTD [REFERRED TO]
WOOLWICH EQUITABLE BUILDING SOCIETY V. INLAND,REVENUE COMMISSIONERS [REFERRED TO]
CHIEF CONSERVATOR OF FORESTS V. JM KONDHARE [REFERRED TO]
RATNAGIRI MUNICIPAL COUNCIL V. HARISHCHANDRA SHANKAR PAWAR [REFERRED TO]
A-Z INDUSTRIAL PREMISES CO-OPERATIVE SOCIETY LTD V. AT UTEKAR [REFERRED TO]
DEEP CHAND BRAHMAN LAL SINGH NIRANJAN SINGH HARI SHANKER SHYAM LAL RAM PRASAD JAIN TRANSPORT GENERAL TRADING CO JAIPAL SINGH VIRENDRA PAL GUPTA VISHAMBHAR DAYAL GUPTA REJENDRAPAL SIA RAM BRIJPAL SINGH PANDIT SRINIVAS MADHO RAM MOHI UDD VS. STATE OF UTTAR PRADESH [REFERRED TO]
SYED YAKOOB VS. K S RADHAKRISHNAN [REFERRED TO]
BINAYAK SWAIN VS. RAMESH CHANDRA PANIGRAHI ANOTHER [REFERRED TO]
PREMIER AUTOMOBILES LIMITED AUTOMATIC ELECTRIC PVT LIMITED VS. KAMLEKAR SHANTARAM WADKE OF BOMBAY :ENGINEERING MAZDOOR SABHA [REFERRED TO]
STATE OF PUNJAB VS. LABOUR COURT JULLUNDUR [REFERRED TO]
T BARAI VS. HENRY AH HOE [REFERRED TO]
BALMER LAWRIE WORKERS UNION BOMBAY VS. BALMER LAWRIE AND COMPANY LIMITED [REFERRED TO]
H D SINGH VS. RESERVE BANK OF INDIA [REFERRED TO]
KAVITA TREHAN VS. BALSARA HYGIENE PRODUCTS LIMITED [REFERRED TO]
RISHIKESH VS. SALMA BEGUM [REFERRED TO]
RAJASTHAN STATE ROAD TRANSPORT CORPORATION VS. KRISHNA KANT [REFERRED TO]
THIRUMURUGA KIRUPANANA VARIYAR THAVATHIRU SUNDARA SWAMIGAL MEDICAL EDUCATIONAL AND CHARITABLE TRUST VS. STATE OF TAMIL NADU [REFERRED TO]
UNION OF INDIA VS. MUSTAFA AND NAJIBAI TRADING CO [REFERRED TO]
INDIAN OVERSEAS BANK VS. I O B STAFF CANTEEN WORKERS UNION [REFERRED TO]
GANGADHAR VS. RAGHUBAR DAYAL [REFERRED TO]
STATE GOVT OF ANDHRA PRADESH VS. MANICKCHAND JEEVRAJ AND CO BOMBAY [REFERRED TO]
MILL MANAGER SAVATRAM RAMPRASAD MILLS VS. INDUSTRIAL COURT NAGPUR [REFERRED TO]
MAHARASHTRA GENERAL KAMGAR UNION VS. BALKRISHNA PEN PRIVATE LIMITED [REFERRED TO]
NATIONAL GENERAL MAZDOOR UNION THANE VS. NITIN CASTING LIMITED [REFERRED TO]

JUDGEMENT

(1.) THESE four Letters Patent Appeals challenge the judgment and order dated 24th December, 1999 delivered by the learned Single Judge (R. J. Kochar, J.) in Writ Petition No. 5536 of 1998 and Writ Petition No. 5550 of 1998. The issues of fact are common and the questions of law arise from the same judgment. It would, hence, be convenient to decide all the four Letters Patent Appeals by a common judgment.

(2.) THE appellant in Letters Patent Appeal No. 118 of 2000 and Letters Patent Appeal No. 119 of 2000 is a Public Limited Company which manufactures three wheelers and two wheelers (hereinafter referred to as the company ). The respondents in the aforesaid Letters Patent Appeals and the appellants in Letters Patent Appeal No. 19 of 2000 and Letters Patent Appeal No. 20 of 2000 are about 703 temporary workmen employed in the company (hereinafter referred to as the workmen ). The 2nd respondent in Letters Patent Appeal No. 19 of 2000 and Letters Patent Appeal No. 20 of 2000 and the 3rd respondent in Letters Patent Appeal No. 118 of 2000 is the Industrial Court, Pune, constituted under the Maharashtra Recognition of Trade Unions and Prevention of Unfair Labour Practices Act, 1971. FACTS

(3.) THE company has a factory at Akurdi, Pune where it manufactures three wheelers and two wheelers. Prior to or about August 1984, the company did not have the practice of hiring temporary employees in its Akurdi Plant. Employees were hired as probationers, but were given breaks in service after successive periods of probation and after several such breaks they were ultimately confirmed as permanent employees. In or about the year 1981, there were about 8000 permanent workmen in the Akurdi Plant of the Company. From August 1984, the company discontinued the system of appointing workmen on probation. All employment thereafter was done on temporary basis for fixed periods of seven months followed by a break of varying period in each case. As a result of these breaks, no temporary employee would complete 240 days service in any period of twelve months.

Click here to view full judgment.

R P SAWANT Vs. BAJAJ AUTO LIMITED

Referred Judgements :-

JUDGEMENT

QUick Links

Get in Touch

Email

Contact Numbers

Address