GOODLASS NEROLAC PAINTS LIMITED Vs. ANAND SHIVRAM SAMANT

JUDGEMENT

(1.) This petition is filed under Article 226 of the Constitution of India against an award of the Industrial Court dated 14th December 1998. The Industrial Court has while allowing a revision against an order of the Labour Court dismissing a complaint of unfair labour practices directed the Petitioner to grant reinstatement, continuity of service and full back wages with effect from 4th July, 1989 to the first respondent.

(2.) The first respondent moved a complaint of unfair labour practices under Items 1(a), (b), (d) and (f) of Schedule IV of the Maharashtra Recognition of Trade Unions and Prevention of Unfair Labour Practices Act, 1971, on 11th July 1989. The claim of the First respondent was that he was in the employment of the Petitioner for a period of fourteen months from 19th February 1988 to 4th July 1989 in the capacity of a Clerk. The first respondent stated that he was working at the Head Office of the management at Lower parel from the date on which he joined service until his termination on 4th July, 1989. The contention of the first respondent was that he had worked with the Petitioner uninterruptedly for more than 480 days. He contended that the termination of his service without complying with the provisions of Section 25(F) of The Industrial Disputes Act, 1947 amounted to an unfair labour practice.

(3.) The defence of the Petitioner to the case of the first Respondent was that after the management lifted the lock out which had been declared on 20th March 1987, on 19th June 1987,the Accounts Department was required to induct some temporary hands to help the regular staff in August 1988. Hence it was submitted that the first respondent was recruited to meet the exigencies of work in August 1988 and that he was not engaged after March 1989. The case of the first respondent that he was engaged between 19th February 1988 till 4th July 1989 was denied. The written statement as originally filed, would hence show that the case of the management was that (i) the First Respondent was amongst the "temporary hands" inducted to help the regular staff and (ii) the First Respondent has worked between August 1988 and March 1989. Over a year later, the Written Statement was amended to set up the plea that the first respondent was in fact engaged as an Apprentice in August 1988 and that his apprenticeship was discontinued in the month of March 1989. The Petitioner also pleaded the case in the amended written statement that the first respondent had actually attended work for 228 days during the period of 8 months; and that he was on leave for 10 days during the month of September 1988. Hence, according to the Petitioner, the first respondent was paid a stipend' for 238 days during the period of 8 months between August 1988 and March 1989 calculated at the rate of Rs.500/- per month.