DEWOO KRISHNA GAWDE Vs. SHRI RAM MILLS

JUDGEMENT

(1.) The present petition challenges the order and judgment passed by the Industrial Court in complaint (ULP) No. 282 of 1997. Some of the material facts, briefly stated, are as under

(2.) The respondent no. 1 is a textile mill and had at one point of time around 4000 employees. The petitioner workers are employed by the respondent company for last many years and according to the petitioners they were given work upto 30. 7.1996 and with effect from 1.8.1996 no work is given to them. It is the case of the petitioners that the contract of employment between the petitioners and the respondents is still subsisting and valid.

(3.) Sometime in or about 1987 the company was referred to the Board for Industrial and Financial reconstruction (BIFR) under the provisions of the sick Industrial Companies (Special Provisions) Act, 1985 (hereinafter referred to as SICA). On 31.10. 1991 under section 18 of the said Act the revival scheme was sanctioned. Under the said scheme it was provided that the company will operate 1,22,576 spindles, 14,449 looms and process about 80,000 meters of cloth per day. It was also provided that the company will carry out modernisation of the plant and machinery. It is the case of the petitioners that no modernisation was carried out but in place of doing so various departments of the respondent company were slowly and slowly closed down and thus the respondent company indulged in illegal closure of certain departments and consequently stoppage of the work for the various employees. Various employees thereafter filed complaints through the unrecognised union in the Industrial Court under the provisions of the Maharashtra Recognition of Trade Unions and prevention of Unfair Labour Practices Act (hereinafter referred to as the MRTU and PULP Act). It is the case of the petitioners that during the pendency of the said complaint which was represented by Shriram Mill Kamgar Sanghatana around 2200 workers were forced to resign. Ultimately an order came to be passed by the BIFR recommending winding up of the company. The Company preferred an appeal before the appellate authority under SICA and after hearing the said appeal a fresh revival scheme was sanctioned on 11.10. 1994 by AAIFR. Under the said scheme the capacity and functioning of the mill was reduced and the company was required to operate only 40,000 spindles and process 50,000 meters of grey cloth. Consequently about 1400 workers only were to be retained and the balance workers were to be retrenched from the service. Under the said redevelopment scheme it was also provided that the land belonging to the respondent will be sold and the money available from sale of surplus land and fsi will be used in modernising of the remaining departments of the said mill. It is the case of the petitioners that though the excess land was sold no scheme was implemented. Instead all the 1400 permanent workers who were required to be kept in employment by AAIFR were forced to resign and the entire mill has been closed down without obtaining permission from the State Government and without complying with the provisions of law. According to the petitioners, the said mill is closed down since may, 1996. Sometime on or about 7.11.1996, the respondent once again approached the AAIFR and got the scheme modified. The said scheme envisaged further reduction of the work-force and sale of additional land of about 28000 sq. mtrs. Under the new scheme the company was obliged only to employ 189 workers and the balance were retrenched. However, it is the case of the petitioners that even prior to the amended scheme, the company has been entirely closed down. It is the case of the petitioners that about 1200 workers accepted the voluntary retirement scheme but the petitioners continued to work upto 31.7.1996 in the ring department as substitute employees in place of permanent employees. On 1.8.1996, when they reported for work they were told that there is no work and that they must continue reporting for work and would be provided work as and when available. In the meantime, the respondent company started recruiting contract workers and, therefore, the petitioners registered a complaint before the Labour commissioner regarding the illegal employment of contract workers. By letter dated 13.11.1996, the labour Commissioner directed the respondent company to provide work to the petitioners in preference to the contract workers. In fact contractors M/s. Gurubachan Enterprises has been fined under the contract Labour Act also. However, in view of the persistent refusal of the respondent to give work to the petitioners, the petitioners filed a complaint of unfair labour practice under item 9 of Schedule iv of the MRTU and PULP Act in the Industrial Court. They filed two separate complaint being Complaint (ULP) No. 282 of 1997 and Complaint (ULP) No. 282 of 1997. The said complaints were in respect of two different groups of workers. It is the case of the petitioners that though they were employees of the respondent company and they had completed 240 days of continuous service in number of years in respect of their past service, they were not provided with work and their work was given to the contract workers. It is their case that they have achieved a permanent status by virtue of working for 240 days continuously in many of the previous years. It is thus contended that the petitioners have achieved the permanent status. It is the petitioners case in para 9 of the petition that their services are governed by the Standing Orders certified under the bombay Industrial Relations Act, 1946 (hereinafter referred to as the BIR Act) and agreements/settlements entered into by the respondent company with the representative union. It is the further case of the petitioners that on 30. 5.1995 the respondent company had entered into an agreement with RMMS and under clause 9 of the said agreement dated 30. 5.1995 it was provided that the respondent will not employ any contract workers for the normal functioning of the company. Thus, by the complaint, the petitioners sought two-fold relief (i) that they should be regularised and absorbed in a regular employment and should be given permanency and (ii) that the respondent should be restrained from engaging contract workers. Both the said complaints were heard together and after leading of evidence and hearing of the parties, the impugned order has been passed. The petitioner has led the evidence of three witnesses. It is this order of the Industrial Court which is a common order passed in respect of both the complaints being the order dated 27.2.1998 against which the present writ petition has been filed.