RAYMOND UCO DENIM PRIVATE LTD. Vs. PRAFUL WARADE

JUDGEMENT

(1.) This Letters Patent Appeal under Clause 15 of the Letters Patent raises a challenge to the judgment of the learned Single Judge in Writ Petition No.4996/2009 decided on 12th, 13th and 15th April 2010. By the said judgment the challenge raised by the appellant-employer to the judgment of the Industrial Court in U.L.P.(Complaint) No.27 of 2007 decided on 01.01.2009 was negatived. That complaint was filed by the respondents-employees seeking the relief of permanency on completion of probationary period of three months and the same was allowed. For the sake of convenience the parties would be referred to as employer and employees hereinafter.

(2.) For considering the challenges raised in this appeal it would be necessary to refer to the factual aspects that are available on record. The employer is an industrial establishment which is governed by the provisions of the Maharashtra Industrial Relations Act, 1946 (hereinafter referred to as 'the Act of 1946') as well as the Model Standing Orders for Operatives framed thereunder. It is the case of the employees that initially they were appointed as trainees for a period of one year. After completion of the training period of one year, the employees were appointed on probation for a period of six months. According to them under Model Standing Order 4A the probationary period prescribed is only of three months and hence after completion of that probationary period, the employees had become permanent and regular on their respective posts. The employer however confirmed the employees in service on completion of eighteen months service and treated them as regular and permanent employees after completion of twenty four months service. Having made oral representations to the employer for grant of benefit of regularisation and permanency, the employees on 22.03.2007 filed a complaint under Section 28 of the Maharashtra Recognition of Trade Unions and Prevention of Unfair Labour Practices Act, 1971 (for short, 'the Act of 1971'). In the said complaint the employees sought relief of declaration that on completion of one year training period, it be declared that they had become regular and permanent employees. In the alternate, the relief of they having become permanent in service on completion of probationary period of three months was prayed for. Other ancillary reliefs in monetary terms was also prayed for. The complaint was filed invoking Item 9 of Schedule IV of the Act of 1971. There were 53 complainants and the complaint was supported by the affirmation of the complainant no.1.

(3.) The employer filed its written statement opposing the aforesaid complaint. It was admitted that initially the employees had been appointed for a period of one year as trainees. Some of the complainants did not complete their training period successfully and hence their training period was extended by a period of two to three months. Thereafter the complainants were offered employment as probationers by prescribing the probation period of six months. The offer made to them to work as probationers was accepted by each complainant in writing. On completion of the probation period of six months, they were issued orders of appointment in writing and the same were accepted by them. It was then pleaded that the permanent employees on roll on 31.03.2004 were governed by the settlement dated 18.02.2005 entered into between the employer and the representative Union under Section 58 of the Act of 1946. Since the complainants became permanent after 31.03.2004 they were not governed by that settlement. It was also pleaded that the probationary period under the Model Standing Orders would not apply to the complainants in view of the contract of service between the parties prescribing probationary period of six months. It was denied that the employer had indulged in any unfair labour practice under Item 9 Schedule IV of the Act of 1971. On these counts dismissal of the complaint was sought by the employer.