BAJAJ AUTO LINITED Vs. STATE OF MAHARASHTRA

JUDGEMENT

(1.) Rule. Rule made returnable forthwith. Learned Counsel appearing for the respondents waive service.

(2.) The petitioner has sought for a writ of mandamus under Article 226 of the Constitution of india for striking down the impugned order of reference dated 21st March, 2006 made by the Deputy Commissioner labour Aurangabad Division Aurangabad under section 10 of the Industrial Disputes act 1947.

(3.) The petitioner - Bajaj Auto Limited is a manufacturer of two wheeler and there wheeler automobile vehicles. The manufacturing activity is carried out at its plant at waluj, Aurangabad. The petitioner contends that the members of respondent No. 3 were given temporary, fixed term employment by the petitioner for the first time 18 years ago from the date when the third respondent bhartiya Kamgar Kranti Sangathana put up its demand notice on 27-1 -2004. The appointments of the workers were made by the petitioner to meet the increase in demand arising out of market exigencies. This appointment was initially for a period of 7 months. The appointments were given to the persons on temporary basis on their applications who had accepted such temporary engagement in writing. At the end of each of these fixed terms periods the workers' employment came to an automatic end, according to the petitioner. At no point of time the members worked for 240 days in any span of 12 consecutive calendar months. After the last employment of the members of the third respondent, all such temporaries kept silent for several years without raising any industrial dispute. None of them approached the court of law in spite of they coming to know that litigation of the first batch of 1200 temporaries had started in the year 1997. The said litigation was much publicised one. It is stated that the said litigation ended in the judgment and order dated 17-12-2003 delivered by the Apex Court. Thereafter, the members of the third respondent formed a union and raised their demand on 27-1 -2004 only in order to take undue advantage of the supreme Court judgment dated 17-12-2003 wherein compensation was granted to 185 workers. It is stated that after their last engagement which was about 12 to 18 year ago none of these temporaries ever worked with the petitioner.