MAHINDRA AND MAHINDRA Vs. SHARAD LAXMAN DALVI

JUDGEMENT

(1.) HEARD the learned Advocates of the respective parties. Perused the records.

(2.) THE petitioner challenges the order dated 6-2-2002 passed by the Industrial Court, Mumbai in Complaint (ULP) No. 1150 of 1988. By the impugned order the industrial Court has allowed the complaint filed by the respondent No. 1 against the petitioner and the respondent No. 1 against the petitioner and the respondent No. 2 and has declared that the petitioner has engaged in unfair labour practice under Items 6 and 9 of Schedule IV of the maharashtra Recognition of Trade Unions and Prevention of Unfair Labour Practices Act, 1971, hereinafter called as the said Act, and has ordered the company to resist from continuing with the unfair labour practices and further to give status, privileges and all benefits attached to the post/grade of an assembler to the respondent No. 1 from the day he completed 240 days of continuous service from October, 1979 i. e, the status of permanency from July, 1980.

(3.) IT was the grievance of the respondent No. 1 that even though he had joined the services of the petitioner since October, 1979 and employed as mechanic- B, he was given the designation as that of a Mazdoor and that too when he was holding the requisite qualification on having completed the ITI diesel Mechanic Course and one year's apprenticeship experience in diesel mechanic trade in Scindia Shipping Corporation. It was his further case that he had worked in the Engine Assembly department, and the other departments of the petitioner since he joined the petitioner-company. It was his further case that the petitioner used to give artificial breaks in service of the respondent No. 1 as well as some other workers with the intention to deprive them of the benefits and privileges of permanency. It was his case that he having joined the service to the years 1999, he has already completed 240 days in terms of the provision of Clause 4 (c) of the Model Standing Orders, he ought to have been given the status and privileges of a permanent workman in the assemblers grade out the petitioner having denied the same, the peti-tioner has been engaged in unfair labour practices under Items 6 and 9 of schedule IV of the said Act. The respondent No. 1 had further contended that the petitioner and the respondent No. 2 have entered into a settlement con-trary to the provisions of the Model Standing Orders, particularly Clause 4{c)and thus has deprived the respondent No. 1 and some other workers from getting the benefits, status and privileges as that of a permanent workman which disclose adoption of unfair labour practices under Item 6 of Schedule iv of the said Act on the part of the petitioner. It is his further case that inspite of vacancies being available in the post of assemblers, they were filled in without considering the case of the respondent No. 1 and in collusion with the respondent No. 2-union. Though the respondent No. 1 had approached the Labour Commissioner by the complaint dated 2-5-1988, and the Labour commissioner called the parties by his letter dated 07-6-1988, the petitioner by its letter dated 13-7-1988 refused to consider the claim of the respondent no. 1 regarding the Assembler's Grade and thereby engaged in unfair labour practice under Item 7 of Schedule IV of the said Act. On 27-7-1988 the respondent No. 1 received the petitioner's letter dated 18-7-1988 informing him about his promotion to the post of Assembler with effect from 1-5-1988 which was accepted by the respondent No. 1 without prejudice to his rights and the claim already made by him in that regard. It is his case that he is entitled to the post of Assembler with effect from July, 1980, on completion of 240 days of continuous service in the petitioner-company, which claim was rejected by the petitioner, thereby compelling the respondent No. 1 to accept the terms of employment contrary to the statutory provisions of the Model Standing Orders and thereby adopted unfair labour practice under Item 10 of Schedule IV of the said Act. However, in the course of the hearing of the complaint, the grievance of the respondent No. 1 was restricted to the dispute pertaining to the status, privileges and benefits attached to the post of assembler and the claim of permanency on completion of 240 days of continuous service in terms of Clause 4 (c) of the Model Standing Orders in the post of Assembler,