LOKMAT SHRAMIK SANGHATANA Vs. MEMBER

JUDGEMENT

(1.) The writ jurisdiction of this Court under Articles 226 and 227 of the Constitution of India is invoked against the judgment and order dtd. 10/1/2008 passed by the Industrial Tribunal, Nagpur answering the reference of petitioners for permanency under Sec. 10 (1) read with Sec. 12 (4) of the Industrial Disputes Act, 1947 (for short, "ID Act ") in the negative.

(2.) The facts necessary to be cited for the adjudication of the present petition, in brief, has stated as under:

(3.) Shri S.D. Thakur learned advocate for the petitioner, invited my attention to the various provisions of the Working Journalist Act to urge that Sec. 3 of the said Act make provisions of the ID Act applicable. He invited my attention to Ss. 6,7,8,10, 12(3), 14 and 15 to urge that the petitioners are the persons who are entitled to benefits of rights under the provisions of the Working Journalist Act. He invited my attention to page 10 of the writ petition to demonstrate the facts of each of the petitioners. He submitted that putting petitioners on a fixed-term contract basis is contrary to the provisions of the Working Journalists Act, ID Act. The respondent employer has not issued a notice of change of service as contemplated by Sec. 9A of the ID Act. He invited my attention to the provisions of the Standing Orders to urge that the employees cannot be appointed on a contract basis. Rules 37 and 38 of Industrial Disputes (Bombay) Rules prescribe the procedure for the appointment of employees. He submitted that the right of service like petitioners is governed by the provisions of the ID Act, Standing Orders and the terms and conditions of the Wages Board. He submitted that in the absence of certified Standing Orders, the petitioners' rights are governed by Model Standing Orders. He invited my attention to Rule 3 of the Model Standing Orders for Working Journalists to urge that there is no entry of fixed appointment. He invited my attention to the appointment order, contending that petitioners' services were continuous for years together on the same terms. He submitted that the appointment orders are not issued as per the Fourth Schedule; sec. 6 of the Working Journalist Act provides for working conditions. He submitted that a private contract could not override the provisions of the Working Journalists Act. He submitted that three months probation is contemplated, and thereafter journalist becomes permanent. He invited my attention to Sec. 16 of the Working Journalist Act, which specifically prohibits agreements contrary to the provisions of the Act. Sec. 13 of the said Act restrained employer from reducing basic wages to the wages specified by the Board. He submitted that provisions of Sec. 2 (oo) (bb) of the ID Act were construed to deprive the workman of permanency if he had completed 240 days. Having regard to the nature of work and length of service rendered by the workman would indicate that the work was continuous and permanent. He submitted that 2 (oo) (bb) of the ID Act would not apply since preconditions for the same have not been complied with. He submitted that the Industrial Tribunal erred in not appreciating that petitioners were engaged for years together by issuing appointment letters with notional breaks given in between to deprive the petitioners of permanency and to get out of the clutch of Sec. 25F of the ID Act.