CROMPTION GREAVES Vs. WAMAN NARAYAN TRIMBAKKAR

JUDGEMENT

(1.) By both these appeals, same order passed by the learned Single Judge is challenged. Therefore, both the appeals can be conveniently disposed of by a common order.

(2.) The appellant in Appeal No. 110/-2005 is the employer and appellant in Appeal No. 291/2005 is the employee. Writ petition was filed by the employee challenging the order of the Industrial Court dismissing his complaint filed under MRTU & PULP Act. The employee basically was seeking permanency in the employment of the employer. The Industrial Court found that in terms of the settlement dated 24.6.1988 the employee is not entitled to permanency and the complaint was dismissed. The order of the Industrial Court was challenged before this Court in writ petition. Learned Single Judge endorsed the finding of the Industrial Court that the denial of permanency in service to the employee is not in breach of the settlement referred to above. However, learned Single Judge found that it was also the case of the employee that he was entitled to permanency under the Standing Order because he has completed 240 days of uninterrupted service during 12 months preceding the break. Learned Single Judge found that that aspect has not been gone into by the Industrial Court and therefore, he remanded the matter back to the Industrial Court for recording finding on that aspect of the matter. Employer has filed the appeal challenging the order of remand whereas employee has filed the appeal challenging the order of the learned Single Judge confirming the order of the Industrial Court in relation to the alleged breach of settlement.

(3.) We have heard both the sides at length. Learned Counsel for the appellant/employer submits that there are no pleadings in the complaint claiming permanency on the basis of the Standing Order. He submits that there is also no evidence on record in that regard. He submits that, that question was also not argued before the Industrial Court and therefore, learned Single Judge should not have remanded the matter back for that purpose. Learned Counsel for tine employee on the other hand submits that the question was agitated before the Industrial Court. There are pleadings in the complaint and that there was also some evidence led in that regard. Learned Counsel submits that in any case it is only an order of remand and therefore, Letter's Patent Appeal should not be entertained. Learned Counsel for the employee submits that the employee was in service in the year 1975. According to Clause 13 of the settlement, persons who were in the employment since 1982 were to be considered for permanency. Therefore, the employee should have been considered. Learned Counsel submits that both the Courts misconstrued the provisions of clause 13 of the settlement. Learned Counsel for the employer submits that as per the settlement 600 workmen were to be made permanent. It was the stand of the employer before Industrial Court that employer has made 623 workmen permanent and all the 623 workmen were in service prior to 1982. The employee was in service in the year 1975 for a period of only 4 and 1/2 months., Thereafter there was break in service of 10 years and thereafter for the first time, he was appointed in the year 1985. Therefore, 4 and 1/2 months service of the employee in 1975 has been ignored and if that is so done not a single employee who can be said to be junior, to the employee is given permanency. This is a finding of fact recorded by the Industrial Court and endorsed by the learned Single Judge and therefore, it cannot be interfered with.