PARKE DAVIS INDIA LTD Vs. MAHADEV BHIKU JADHAV

JUDGEMENT

(1.) Writ Petition No.1003 of 1996 has been filed by the Company challenging the order of the Industrial Court dated 19.12.1995. Writ Petition No.6385 of 1996 has been filed by the workmen impugning the same order insofar as it does not grant certain reliefs to them. The Industrial Court has declared that the company has committed an unfair labour practice under Items 6 and 9 of Schedule IV of the MRTU & PULP Act. The company was directed to confirm all the workmen in service as permanent workmen w.e.f. the date they were actually provided work as permanent workmen. The Company was also directed to pay the difference in wages to the workmen which they were entitled to as permanent workmen together with all other allowances and benefits, whether monetary or otherwise, enjoyed by the permanent workmen. The company was directed to provide work to these workmen and to treat them as permanent in service.

(2.) Although Writ Petition No.6385 of 1996 has been filed 18 workmen who were the complainants before the Industrial Court, all the workmen except two i.e. the petitioner Nos.8 and 18 have settled their dispute with the company. Thus, the petitions survive only with respect to Suresh Kandu and Savita Patil, Petitioner No.8 and Petitioner No.18 respectively.

(3.) The workmen were employed in various capacities with the company since 1980. They were employed as temporary or badli workmen although they performed work which was essentially of a permanent nature. Artificial breaks in service were given to these workmen by the company. Settlements were arrived at between the company and the workmen pursuant to which some of the badli workmen were made permanent although they had not completed 240 days of continuous service with the company. A charter of demands was raised by the Parke-Davis (India) Limited Employees Union representing the workmen on 1.4.1989 which included a demand for permanency of temporary and badli workmen concerned in the present petitions. A settlement was arrived at before the Conciliation Officer u/s 18(3) r/w 2(p) of the Industrial Disputes Act. However, this settlement did not contain any agreement in respect of the demand for permanency. On 6.5.1991, the union was assured by the company that it would actively consider the issue of confirmation of badli workmen. Minutes of this meeting were recorded and an arrangement was arrived at which was to remain in force upto the expiry of the settlement dated 16.11.1990. Under this arrangement, the union agreed that the workmen whose names wee enlisted in annexure A to the agreement would be engaged by the company depending upon the availability of the work and as per the existing practice. On 10.2.1992, the workmen approached the company and requested it to make them permanent by implementing the assurance given earlier.