SUKHJIT STARCH AND CHEMICALS Vs. STATE OF PUNJAB

JUDGEMENT

(1.) AN industrial dispute having arisen between Messrs Sukhjit Starch and chemicals Limited, Phagwara, on the one hand, and their workmen on the other, the same was referred by the State of Punjab for adjudication to the Industrial tribunal, Punjab at Patiala sometime in May 1960. Item No. 2 of the said dispute was as follows: "whether the Badli workmen should be absorbed in permanent posts? It so, with details?" besides this item, there were two more items of dispute which were mentioned at nos. 1 and 3 of the notification referring the dispute to the Tribunal, but in the present petition we are not concerned with these two matters. By its award dated the 25th July 1960 published in the Punjab Government Gazette dated September 2, 1960 (copy annexure 'b' to the petition) the Industrial Tribunal directed the employers to bring 12 Badli workmen on the Roll of permanent hands with attendant privileges at once and named those 12 workmen in the said award. Qua the others a direction was made saying-"the management should consider for permanency the cases of others as and when they complete two hundred days of continuous work. " feeling aggrieved against the said award the employers, Messrs Sukhjit Starch and Chemicals Limited, Phagwara, have come up to this Court with the present petition under Arts. 226 and 227 of the Constitution of India and seek to have the award on issue No. 2 quashed. It may be mentioned here that issue No. 2 related to item No. 2 of the dispute. The petitioners allege that the Industrial Tribunal had no jurisdiction to require them to add to their labour force and to compel them to bring 12 of the Badli workers on the Roll of permanent hands with attendant privileges at once and to direct that the management should consider for permanency the cases of others as and when they complete 200 days of continuous work. Their case is that they have got a labour force of about 245 people in all, out of which 165 are serving in three shifts A, B and C, A having 55 permanent workmen, B having 56 workmen and C having 54 workmen. The rest of the employees are engaged in office work and other miscellaneous duties. Apart from these 245 people, they have got another roll of 51 people whom they keep as Badli workmen. These people, though not obliged to report themselves at the gate of the mill every morning, do for their own sake sometimes come with a view to find if any of them can be employed by the management in any vacancy of a permanent or a probationer workmen on any particular day. Out of these Badli workers the management employs as many workers as they have vacancies on that particular day and the rest of the Badli workers return home without getting any work for the day in that mill. I am told that this system has been put in vogue both in the interest of the management as also those of the workmen. The advantage gained by the management is that they have tried and experienced workers always available to them and are in a position to employment. The advantage to the workers is that the management does not employ any other labour on casual vacancies and whenever an occasion arises they have to employ only out of the Badli workers on their Rolls. The case of the management is that they are not obliged to keep these Badli workers on their permanent Roll and the Industrial Tribunal had no jurisdiction at all to compel them to do so and thereby to add unnecessarily to their labour force.

(2.) THE petition is contested on behalf of the workmen whose case is that they have worked for a number of days and have yet not been brought on the permanent Rolls. It is pleaded on their behalf that the Tribunal was perfectly justified in directing the management to bring 12 Badli Workers mentioned in the award on the permanent Roll of the management and to consider the cases of others for being brought on such a roll if and when they complete 200 days of work as Badli workmen.

(3.) AFTER hearing the learned counsel for the parties at great length I have come to the conclusion that this petition must be allowed and the award of the Tribunal relating to issue No. 2 must be quashed.