BHIWANI TEXTILE MILLS, BHIWANI Vs. PRESIDING OFFICER, INDUSTRIAL TRIBUNAL-CUM-LABOUR COURT, ROHTAK AND OTHERS

JUDGEMENT

(1.) The writ petition challenges the award of the Labour Court directing reinstatement of the workman with continuity of service and for back wages. The contention of the workman had been that he had been employed as a Reacher in Babhary (drawing in) department of the Textile Mill on temporary basis since 01.12.1989 as against absenteeism/leave vacancy in the department. The work was done on change basis system and any absenteeism by a worker broke the chain hampering the working of the entire system. In order to cope with the urgent requirement, temporary workers had been recruited to work during the period of leave/absenteeism of permanent workmen. According to the management, the tenure of appointment was as per the exigency of the work and was never continuous. The workman used to be paid only on the days when he worked.

(2.) The workman had given an application to the manager of the Mill on 15.01.1990 seeking for regularization as a badli worker. The necessary particulars of service had been called for by the Record Keeper, who recorded on the application that the workman had been appointed from 01.12.1989, but however, on 01.02.1991, when the workman had reported for duty, he was not allowed to work and verbally told that the services were no longer required. The workman claimed that he had worked from 01.12.1989 to 31.01.1991 with breaks of two or three days after two months, which according to the workman constituted a deliberate unfair labour practice. His further contention was that many persons junior to the workman had been regularized as badli workers, but the claim of the workman alone had been ignored. On a demand notice issued by the workman complaining of illegal termination, the management responded before the Conciliation Officer with an offer to permit him to work as a temporary workman, but the workman refused the offer on the ground that unless he was absorbed as permanent/badli employee, he was not prepared to accept the engagement. The contention of the management was evidently that the workman had been employed for a specific purpose during the absence of some other workmen and when there was no vacancy and when the other workmen during the absence of the workman had been employed, and had resumed duty, the workman is bound to be terminated from service. According to the management, the termination qualified for the expression of cessation of work as provided under Section 2(oo)(bb) of the Industrial Disputes Act.

(3.) The Labour Court found that on the failure of the management to produce the attendance register, an inference had to be drawn and held that the workman had completed 240 days as claimed by him. The Labour Court also found that the management was guilty of unfair labour practice by making reference to the P.F. Account numbers of some persons Virender and Rattan Lal by making an inference that the workman's P.F. Account was mentioned as 11073 while Virender's Account was shown as 11084 and therefore, the latter ought to have been his junior. Finding that Virender had been regularized while the workman had been terminated from service, the Court found the contention of the workman as regard his complaint of unfair labour practice to have been established.