KAINETIC ENGINEERING LTD Vs. RAJU MAHADEO SHINDE

JUDGEMENT

(1.) THIS petition is directed against the judgment and order dated 23. 2. 1994 passed by the Industrial Court, Ahmednagar in Complaint (ULP)No. 472 of 1988.

(2.) THE respondent-complainant filed a complaint in the Industrial court under section 28 read with section 5 of the Maharashtra Recognition of Trade Unions and Prevention of Unfair Labour Practices Act 1971 in respect of unfair labour practice under Item 9 Schedule IV of the said Act. The complainant contended that he was employed by the petitioner - M/s. Kinetic Engineering Limited from 29-10-1980 to 2-10-1983 and from 16-8-1986 to 15-2-1987. The petitioner company manufactures Luna and Spark mopeds. It has sound market for its business and has about 2000 employees out of which, 800 were permanent. The provisions of the Model Standing orders were accepted by the company. It was contended that the complainant was given appointment order on 29-11-1980 for three months period in the Inspection Department. He worked upto 3-3-1981 and after expiry of the said period the complainant was given appointment order upto 25-3-1981. The wages of the complainant were paid by vouchers. On 26-3-1981 the complainant was given another appointment order in the same post. After expiry of the period mentioned in the said order the complainant was compelled to work on the muster roll of casual employees for near about 15 days and was paid wages by vouchers. He was given appointment order as job trainee in the said post on 12-7-1981 for a period of one year. During the said period the employees of the petitioner company had gone on strike for about six to seven months from 20-3-1982. The services of the complainant and other employees were discontinued. In the month of September 1982 the strike was called off by the Union. The complainant was given appointment order upto 3. 3. 1983 and he worked from 3. 3. 1983 to 2. 10. 1983 and from 16. 8. 1986 to 15. 2. 1987.

(3.) THE complainant raised specific contention in the complaint that he worked for more than 240 days continuously during the period from 29-11-1980 to 2-10-1983, and therefore, he is entitled to get benefit of permanency with effect from 1-10-1983 as per the Model Standing Orders. The strength of the employees in the petitioner company gradually increased but in stead of giving work to the old employees the company recruited new employees. A settlement was arrived at between the Union and the petitioner company on 25-9-1982 under which it was settled that such workers would be made permanent. In spite of the settlement the complainant was not made permanent and therefore the present complaint was filed.