PERMANENT MAGNETS LTD Vs. WORKMEN EMPLOYED

JUDGEMENT

(1.) This petition is directed against an Award of the Industrial Tribunal dated 13th November 2002 in a reference to adjudication under Section 10 of the Industrial Disputes Act, 1947. The State Government referred an industrial dispute relating to the demand for permanency of 43 casual workmen for adjudication before the Industrial Tribunal. During the pendency of the Reference, some of the workmen covered by the reference resigned from service whereas certain others informed the Industrial Tribunal that they did not wish to pursue with their claim any further. As a result, the reference survived in relation to eighteen workmen. By its award, the Tribunal directed the Petitioner to grant permanency to those 18 workmen with effect from the date of the reference, namely, 29th October 1993 and to pay them wages and extend other facilities that are available to the permanent workmen of the establishment. The award of the Industrial Tribunal was stayed during the pendency of these proceedings. The Petition has now been placed for hearing and final disposal.

(2.) The basis of the claim before the Industrial Tribunal was that a majority of the workmen who owed allegiance to the Kamgar Utkarsha Sabha, resigned in 1990 from the membership of that Union and joined the Association of Engineering Workers. The claim of the workmen was that they have been working for periods ranging between 3 and 11 years and, though they were attending to work of a permanent nature, they had not been granted the benefit of permanency. The contention of the workmen was that they were given breaks in service and that new casual workmen were appointed in their place. The management filed its Written Statement stating that it had in regular employment at its Factory about 233 permanent workmen. The management stated that it had a pool of 65 casual workers which included twenty one persons whose names were mentioned in the schedule to the order of the Reference. Twenty one other persons whose names were mentioned in the schedule were, according to the management, neither engaged as casuals, nor were they on their rolls. According to the management, these casual workers were engaged when the permanent workmen were unavailable for work either as a result of absence or leave. The management contended that as and when a permanent vacancy arose, persons from amongst the casual workers who are found to be suitable on the basis of merit-cum-seniority were being made permanent. According to the management, except for twenty one persons in the order of reference, the rest of the workmen had not been reporting since a little prior to July 1993.

(3.) On behalf of the workmen, evidence was adduced of three workmen while on behalf of the management two witnesses, namely, the Supervisor (Personnel and Administration) and a Production Manager deposed in evidence. The Industrial Tribunal, as noted above, allowed the Reference in part, by directing the management to confer the benefit of permanency with consequential service conditions upon eighteen workmen from the date on which the order of reference was made.