THE ICHALKARANJI CO Vs. DECCAN CO

JUDGEMENT

(1.) The present writ petition is filed against the order dated 3rd Sept. 1986 passed by the Industrial Court at Kolhapur in Complaint (ULP) No. 68 of 1983.

(2.) Respondent No. 1 filed the aforesaid complaint under the Maharashtra Recognition of Trade Unions and Prevention of Unfair Labour Practices Act, 1971 (hereinafter referred to as 'the Act of 1971' for the sake of brevity). The main contention of respondent No. 1 union was that a number of employees are employed as badlies and casuals by the petitioner-society for years together only with the idea to deprive them of the benefits of permanency and by doing this act the present petitioner-society has committed an act of unfair labour practice under Schedule IV item 6 and item 9. After going through the affidavits filed by both the sides, the Industrial Court came to the conclusion that out of 1500 employees employed by the petitioner - society only about 385 are permanent and the rest are badlies or casuals. The industrial Court also found that the standard complement for the petitioner-society will come to about 939 employees which the society will require for working the three shirts and the general shift. The statement given by the society showing therein employees employed department wise shows that out of 1517 employees 369 are permanent, 15 are probationers, 834 are badlies and 299 are trainees. From the aforesaid figures the lower Court came to the conclusion that the number of permanent employees is far less than the standard compliments. On the contrary badlies and casuals are practically equal to the standard compliments. From this the lower Court concluded that this act of the petitioner-society of keeping large number of badlies without making them permanent was with a view to deprive these badlies or casual workers benefit of permanency and, therefore, the lower Court came to the conclusion that the same amounts to unfair labour practice under the Act of 1971, particularly under item 6 of Schedule IV. As regards the contention of respondent No. 1 union that the said act also amounts to violation or infringement of item 9 of Schedule IV of the Act of 1971, the lower Court rejected the contention of respondent No. 1 union. After giving these findings, the Industrial Court further ordered that the present petitioner-society should desist from such unfair labour practice and further directed the present petitioner-society to confirm all those badlies and casual employees who were on the roll of respondent No. 2 for more than two years on the date of filing the complaint i.e. with effect from 2nd Sept. 1983 and further directed the present petitioner to confirm those badlies or casual employees who completed 240 days of uninterrupted service as badlies and casuals.

(3.) It is against this order the present petition is filed. It was strenuously argued on behalf of the petitioner-society that the direction given by the lower Court is vague and cannot be implemented. According to Smt. Meena Doshi, learned Counsel appearing on behalf of the petitioner-society, unless and until the complaint discloses the concerned badli employees in respect of whom the unfair labour practice is alleged to have been committed, the present direction given by the Industrial Court is in the realm of vagueness and it is impossible for the petitioner-society to implement the same. According to me there is no substance in this contention. Firstly, all these employees are the employees of the petitioner-society and they are maintaining the record and their rolls. Not only that, but now during the pendency of this writ petition learned Counsel on behalf of respondent No. 1 Kum. Buch has filed the affidavit after taking the inspection of the record of the petitioner-society and given the figures as to who are the badli employees who have completed 240 days uninterruptedly. The said statement prepared by respondent No. 1 from the record of the present petitioner is not challenged by the present petitioner and, therefore, on the basis of that statement the petitioner-society can comply with the order of the trial Court without any further difficulty. It is pertinent to note that if respondent No. 1 union can prepare the list of these badli employees who have completed 240 days' uninterrupted service, I do not understand as to how the petitioner-society, having all the documents in its possession, is not in a position to prepare the said list and implement the orders of the Industrial Court. According to me it is only an attempt to delay or protract the implementation of the order of the Industrial court.