VOLTAS LIMITED Vs. M M KENDREKAR PRESIDING OFFICER

JUDGEMENT

(1.) By this Special Civil Application under Articles 226 and 227 of the Constitution of India M/s. Voltas Limited, a Company incorporated under the Companies Act, having their registered office at 19, Graham Road, Bombay- 400 038 and branch at Voltasagar, Dr. Ambedkar Road, Bombay- 400 033 (hereinafter referred to as the Company) challenges an award dated 9-3-1976 passed by the learned Presiding Officer, 4th Labour Court, Bombay, in Reference (IDA.) No. 330 of 1974 directing the Company to reinstate Narayan K. Naik, one of their employees (hereinafter referred to as the workman) with full back wages.

(2.) The workman had been in the employment of the Company as Sepoy intermittently for a period of 8 years from 28-10-65 to 24-9-73 on temporary basis. His last employment in this manner was from 18-9-73 to 24-9-73 which was, as per the appointment letter dated 18-9-73, automatically to cease on 24-9-73 unless extended in writing; but it could be terminated on any day earlier without any notice and without assigning any reason. The appointment was on basic salary of Rs. 45/- per month plus dearness allowance as may be in enforce from time to time. He was not given work on and from 25-9-73. He felt aggrieved on account of termination of his services in this manner by the Company and, therefore, lodged a complaint with the Government Labour Officer on 16-2-74. During the intervening period he was going to the Company off and on with a hope to get re-employment, but in vain. It appears that the Deputy Commissioner of Labour intervened and the matter was admitted in conciliation. Since it was not settled the Conciliation Officer submitted failure report on 29-6-74. Under the circumstances, in exercise of the powers conferred by Clause (c) of sub-section (1) of section 10 read with sub-section (5) of section 12 of the Industrial Disputes Act, 1947 (hereinafter referred to as "the Act"), the Deputy Commissioner of Labour (Administration) Bombay, made a reference by his order dated 31-7-74 to the 4th Labour Court, Bombay, for adjudication of the dispute between the Company and the workman. The schedule annexed to the order of reference indicates that the demand of the workman was that he should be reinstated with full back wages and continuity of the services with effect from 24-9-73.

(3.) The case of the workman as per his statement of claim was that he was an employee of the Company as Sepoy and Sepoy-cum-Hamal on temporary basis. It was a regular practice with the Company that the employees in Sepoy or Sepory-cum-Hamal and similar categories were recruited initially as temporary employees and confirmed later according to their seniority. However, in his case, although he had joined the Company on 28-10-65 and had become a member of the Companys Provident Fund on 7-7-68 and was the senior-most employee in the said category he was not made permanent inspite of the fact that there was an agreement dated 31-12-70 signed before the Conciliation Officer between the Company and the Union representing the workman like him. According to him, he was not made permanent with ulterior motive and juniors to him viz. (1) Suresh Gangan and (2) Govind Keshav Dutt were made permanent thus violating the terms of the agreement dated 31-12-70. He further contended that the Company had neither charge-sheeted him nor had conducted any enquiry and without assigning any valid reason or without giving notice in writing arbitrarily discharged him from services which amounted to unfair labour practice and violation of principles of natural justice. He, therefore, demanded reinstatement with continuity of service and back wages. The Company resisted his claim and as per written statement it was their case that the workman was purely temporary having been employed intermittently from 28-10-65 to 24-9-73 if and when there was a leave vacancy or rush for work. Thus he was under the employment at their Air-conditioning and Refrigeration department (Central Plant Sales) from 28-9-71 to 11-11-71. However, he did not attend work with effect from 1-11-71 and on 4-11-71 they came to know that he had applied for a post at the Companys factory at Thane and was given employment there. Subsequently, when Thane establishment of the Company learnt that although he was already an employee of the Company upto 11-11-71 he sought such employment with them at Thane without disclosing the facts, they terminated his temporary services by a letter dated 5-11-71. Thereafter, the workman requested the Company, after tendering an apology to re-employ him and solely on humanitarian consideration he was again given temporary employment whenever such employment was available. He then worked with the Company intermittently upto 24-9-73. The Company further contended that from 1-11-71 to 24-9-73 there were adverse remarks regarding his performance in work. Therefore, at the end of his employment on 24-9-73 his services stood automatically terminated and he was not given work thereafter. Thus they did not terminate his services, contended the Company. Regarding Suresh Gangan and Govind Keshav Dutt being confirmed the Company said that they were not employed on the same job as the present workman and their service record was good. Hence they were confirmed. According to Company, the temporary employees were not confirmed as per their seniority only, but according to performance in the discharge of duties. They then averred that the workman was made a member of the Provident Fund on 7-7-68 through oversight. The Company further canvassed that they did not charge sheet the workman because he was not dismissed or discharged as and by way of punishment for any mis-conduct. The Company thus neither indulged in unfair labour practice nor did they violate the principles of natural justice, added the Company. They, therefore, prayed for the dismissal of the claim of the workman.