BAJAJ AUTO LIMIED Vs. R P SAWANT

JUDGEMENT

(1.) WHAT the employees have complained to be an unfair labour practice under item 6 of the mrtu and PULP Act, 1971 (the Act for short), the petitioner-employers have said to be-employment by rotation of 4000 employees for a period of less than 7 months. I would rather name it to be "bajaj Rozgar Yojana" like, Jawahar Rozgar Yojana. They have averred so in their written statement and in their writ petition as under :-

(2.) THE employers filed their written statement and denied all the allegations of unfair labour practices and explained conditions of employment, production and market fluctuations and uncertainty of demand for their products (two and three wheelers) due to keen competition. They have tried to explain that they have a seniority list of employees categorywise and workwise and they employ the employees from the said list on the basis of their seniority and availability of orders depending on the fluctuating market. These employees are employed and continued in accordance with the orders and availability of the work upto a period of 7 months and if work continues even for a long period. The company has admitted the employment of employees as temporary for the increase in the work and till such increased work is available depending on the market. The company has denied that it has engaged in any unfair labour practice by employing the temporary employees as contemplated under Item 6 as it has given the same and equal wages to them on par with the permanent employees. It has also extended most of the benefits enjoyed by the permanent employees to the temporary employees. According to it only L. T. A. , washing allowance, uniforms, leave and bus pass facility are not given to the temporary employees while in respect of all other facilities and benefits both are equally treated and there is parity in the service conditions of both the classes. The company has therefore vehemently denied that the temporary employees are denied the status and privileges of permanent employees. It has specifically averred that it employs about 6200 employees as permanent whose service conditions are governed by the contract of service, Model standing Orders and the settlement with the recognised union which represents the majority of the employees. It has admitted the employment of temporary employees but it has denied that its object is to deny them the status and privileges of permanent employees. Its specific case is that it employs temporary employees as and when there is increase in work depending on the market conditions which are not steady or certain but keep on fluctuating and therefore, it cannot keep all the 4000 temporary employees as permanent in addition to its permanent strength of 6200 employees. The company's case is that out of the 4000 temporaries it employs on the basis of seniority and availability of work depending on the period and nature of work. It has emphasised that its rotation scheme is in consonance with the Model Standing Orders and not an unfair labour practice as complained of by the employees.

(3.) ON the basis of the pleadings of both the parties broadly and briefly stated hereinabove they adduced before the Industrial court oral and documentary evidence to prove their respective cases. Out of about 700 complainants only selective common evidence of 3 employees was adduced while the company also produced documents in addition to its oral evidence. To be precise here, I may say that there was no dispute about the factual basis between the parties. Therefore, I have to examine and answer the question whether the admitted act of the company in employing the complainants as temporaries for years, was with the object of depriving them of the status and privileges of permanent workmen, so that it could be declared as an unfair labour practice as contemplated by the Act and the Item 6 of sch. IV of the Act? Second question Which also requires to be scrutinised is whether such an act of the company is also violative of the provisions of the Model Standing Orders to attract the unfair labour practice within the meaning of the Item 9 of Sec. 4 of the Act?