MANOJ AMDAS INGLE Vs. MEMBER INDUSTRIAL COURT

JUDGEMENT

(1.) RULE. Rule made returnable forthwith. Heard finally by consent.

(2.) BEING aggrieved by the order passed by the learned Industrial Court, Nagpur in Complaints (ULPN) Nos. 47 to 154 of 2000 dated 8th October, 2002 thereby dismissing the complaints of the present petitioners, the petitioners have approached this Court by way of present petition.

(3.) THE complainants/petitioners had approached the learned Industrial Court by moving the complaints under Item Nos. 6 and 9 of Schedule IV of the Maharashtra Recognition of Trade Unions and Prevention of Unfair Labour Practices Act, 1971 (hereinafter referred as the Act) praying for direction to the respondent/company to make them regular and permanent from 1-4-1996 by giving all monetary benefits and in the alternative for a direction to reinstate the complainants in their former posts and for payment of full back wages for the period they were treated as Semi- skilled Trainees till engagement as temporary employees and even thereafter. It was the contention of the complainants in the complaints that they were qualified employees for appointment in their respective posts. However, the respondent/company had deliberately appointed them as "company Trainees" for fixed period between 1-7-1995 to 30-6-1996 and extracted regular work from them. It is further averred in the complaints that in order to deny the permanency, the respondent/company has appointed them as a semi-skilled trainees from 1-7-1996 to 30-6-1997 and extended to, from 1-7-1997 to 31-12-1997. According to the complainants, the provisions under Chapter V-B of the Industrial Disputes Act, 1947 (hereinafter referred as the ID Act) are applicable to the respondent/company. It is further averred in the complaints that in order to deprive them from regularisation, the respondent/ Company has been employing them under various schemes and categories from time to time. The complainants further averred that though they have achieved the status of regular and permanent employees as long as on 1-4-1996 on their completion of 240 days, they were continued as temporary and casual employees, it is further averred that, in spite of making various representations for making them regular and permanent, no steps have been taken by the Company. It is further the contentions of the complainants/petitioners that the respondent/ company has retrenched them with effect from 31-12-1997 without compliance of Section 25-F and G of the I. D. Act and that the respondent/company has also failed to comply with the provisions of Section 25-H of the I. D. Act.