SAUDI ARABIAN AIR LINES Vs. ASHOK MARGOVIND PANCHAL

JUDGEMENT

(1.) THE petitioner employer is carrying on the business of international air transport. It is a foreign airlines company fully owned by the Royal Family of the Kingdom of Saudi Arabia. The petitioner is aggrieved by the judgment and order dated 21st October, 1995 passed by the Industrial Court in Complaint U. L. P. No. 1296 of 1991 filed by the respondent who was employed as a security guard by the petitioner. The respondent employee complained of the unfair labour practice under Items 6 and 9 of Schedule IV of the M. R. T. U. and P. U. L. P. Act, 1971 in his complaint under section 28 read with section 30 of the Act. By the impugned order, the Industrial Court allowed the complaint and directed the petitioner to make the respondent employee permanent from the date on which he completed 240 days of service and also to pay him all the consequential benefits of permanency.

(2.) ACCORDING to the respondent, he was appointed vide appointment letter dated 1st October, 1989 as a security guard on the terms and conditions stipulated in the said appointment letter for consolidated wage of Rs. 1400/- per month. One of the conditions was that the respondent would stand terminated on expiry of the period of two years i. e. on the closing hours of the shift of 30th September, 1991. In the complaint filed by the respondent it was averred by him that the petitioner was engaging in unfair labour practice of appointing a number of employees as security guards from time to time for a stipulated or fixed period and, thereafter terminating them at the end of such period. The petitioner again used to employ either the same security guards after giving them artificial break or employ other persons as security guards from the open market. By following this practice, the petitioner deprived such employees of privileges and benefits of permanency which the petitioner is bound to give after completion of 240 days continuous service. According to the respondent failure to make him as permanent security guard, after completion of 240 days continuous service, attracted Item 9 of Schedule IV of the Act as the Model Standing Orders which are admittedly applicable to the establishment of the petitioner. The respondent invoked Item 4 (C) of the Model Standing Orders which casts a mandate that every employee who completes continuous services of 240 days shall be made permanent in employment. The respondent has also given a number of instances to demonstrate the consistent unfair labour practice engaged in by the petitioner under Item 6 of Schedule IV of the Act. According to the respondent, he was deprived of the benefits and privileges of permanency including the regular pay scale which was almost double for the regular security guards. According to the respondent, the work of security guards was of perennial or permanent nature and the posts of the security guards are provided in the settlements with the union and that there was no temporary increase in such work for which it could be said that the respondent was temporarily employed only for a period of two years.

(3.) THE petitioner appeared before the Industrial Court and contested the complaint by filing its written statement denying the charge of unfair labour practice. According to the petitioner, the appointment order was a self contained order appointing the respondent for a fixed period of two years and his services stood discontinued after expiry of the said period of two years. According to the petitioner, there was temporary rise in the work of security at the airports and, therefore, it became necessary to engage the extra security guards for some period. According to the petitioner, the appointment of the respondent was squarely covered by section 2 (oo) (bb) of the Industrial Disputes Act, 1947 and, therefore, there was no unfair labour practice engaged in by the petitioner. It was also pleaded that Standing Order 4 (c) was not applicable in the present case. The petitioner generally but stoutly denied the charge of unfair labour practice and prayed for dismissal of the complaint.