M N MISHRA Vs. SIEMENS

JUDGEMENT

(1.) HEARD the learned Advocates for the parties. Persued the records.

(2.) THE petitioner-workman challenges the judgment and order dated 27-6-2001 passed by the Industrial Court dismissing Complaint (U. L. P.) No. 349 of 1992 which was filed by the petitioner alleging that the respondent-company was indulging 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".

(3.) THE grievance to the petitioner was that inspite of having been employed as Asst. Stores Keeper/commercial Workman since April, 1980 by the respondent-company and having completed 240 days of work between 30-4-1980 to 30-4-1991 and even thereafter, the respondent company by giving artificial breaks has deprived the petitioner from being given the status of a permanent workman which he is otherwise entitled to in term of Clause 4 (b) of the Model Standing Orders applicable to the parties. The contention of the respondent-company, on the other hand, is that the petitioner was engaged for a fixed period and on temporary basis in relation to execution of projects relating to installation and erection of industrial/electrical equipment and that, therefore, even if the petitioners has completed 240 days of service in a year, he is not entitled to claim the benefits of permanency under Clause 4 (b)of the Model Standing Orders.