BAJAJA AUTO LTD Vs. ASHOK DNYANOBA DHUMAL

JUDGEMENT

(1.) This petition filed by the employer-company takes exception to the award passed by the First Labour Court at Pune in reference (IDA) No. 36 of 1990 directing to reinstate the respondent-workman on his original post with continuity of service and full backwages for the intervening period. The undisputed factual matrix relevant for deciding the petition could be described as under. 1a. The respondent-workman came to be employed as a helper on temporary basis as a daily rated unskilled workman during the following periods :- sr. No. Date of Employment date of Termination no. of days worked 1.23-07-1984 31-12-1984 132 2.10-02-1985 18-03-1985 31 3.20-12-1985 19-02-1986 32 4.28-02-1986 07-07-1986 107 5. 09-07-1986 31-08-1986 43 6.16-03-1987 15-11-1987 119 after 15-11-1987 the respondent-workman was not employed by the petitioner and no dispute was raised on this count. By an order dated 28-3-1988 he came to be employed as Helper-1 from 26-3-1988 for a maximum period of about one month and the appointment was on account of exigencies of work and was likely to be terminated at any time during the period of 30 days without notice or salary/wages in lieu of notice. The daily rate of wages was fixed at rs. 6.80 in the grade of Rs 6.80-12.30. On 25-4-1988 he was issued a letter of extension since the job for which he was temporarily employed had not been completed. This extension of one month was upto 25-5-1988. Similarly another extension letter was issued on 25-5-1988 for extending the temporary tenure upto 30-9-1988. Finally, by the last communication dated 30-9-1988 his tenure was extended upto 30-11-1988 on the same terms and conditions. After 30-11-1988 there was neither any extension nor any fresh appointment order was issued in favour of the respondent-workman. He raised a demand for reinstatement sometimes in the year 1989 and the said demand came to be referred for adjudication to the Labour Court in Reference (IDA) No. 36 of 1990.

(2.) In the statement of claim filed before the Labour Court on or about 29-6- 1990, the workman stated that he was in the employment since 29-7-1984 as a helper in the paint shop and claimed that as he insisted/requested for all benefits of permanency, the employer terminated the service from 1-12-1988 or the employer did not give any fresh appointment. He also claimed that the juniors and fresh employees were retained but he was not continued. Para 4 of the statement of claim reads thus and the reinstatement demand as made was based on the averments therein :-"4. In fact, while giving artificial breaks to the Second Party workman, the First Party Management never followed the procedure laid down under the Industrial Disputes Act so also the provisions of Standing orders applicable to them. The First Party Management had never displayed seniority list on the Notice Board before terminating the services of the Second Party workman. Similarly, no permission was obtained from the appropriate Government before taking the action of termination of the Second Party. "

(3.) The Management filed its Written Statement and admitted that the respondent-workman was employed as a helper on temporary basis with daily rated wages. In support of the petitioner's contention that the demand for reinstatement or the allegation of illegal termination from service could not be entertained as the respondent had not attained the status of permanency either under the Standing Orders or on account of completing 240 days of service in the last spell of his appointment i. e. from 26-3-1988 to 30-11-1988, it was pointed out that during this period he had worked for 207 days and he was paid for 207 days because he was a daily rated helper. It was further submitted by the management that the demand for the different models of two wheelers (Scooters) and three wheelers (auto-rickshaw) had considerably dropped in the domestic market thereby reducing the requirement of temporary helpers to be engaged in different production shops, as a result of which the number of temporary helpers employed in the factory had also reduced. It also submitted that by any stretch of imagination the non-engagement or non-renewal of temporary tenure did not amount to an act of retrenchment, leave alone illegal retrenchment.