Bombay High Court
M/S Mahindra Sintered Products Ltd vs Shri. Rajaram Vilas Shendkar And Ors on 25 July, 2025
Author: Ravindra V. Ghuge
Bench: Ravindra V. Ghuge
2025:BHC-AS:31234-DB
1-LPA-147-2011-(C).odt
Digitally signed
SUNNY
by SUNNY
ANKUSHRAO
ANKUSHRAO THOTE
IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY
THOTE Date:
2025.07.25
18:22:59 +0530
CIVIL APPELLATE JURISDICTION
LETTERS PATENT APPEAL NO. 147 OF 2011
IN
WRIT PETITION NO. 3859 OF 1997
M/s Mahindra Sintered Products Ltd.,
(Now know as GKN Sinter Metals
Private Limited), 140 Bombay- Pune
Road, Pimpri, Pune - 411 018 ...APPELLANT
Versus
1. Bharatiya Kamgar Sena
Sena Bhavan, Dadr, Mumbai
2. S.S. Hirurkar,
Hon'ble Industrial Court,
Maharashtra, Pune PMT Commercial
Building Swargate, Pune
3. S.S. Bhosale, Age 43 years
Residing at Rupi Nagar,
Malsure Chawl, Nigadi,
Pune 411 019.
4. B.G. Najan, Age 38 years,
Residing at Kalewadi Nadhe Nagar,
Krantiveer Colony, Pimpri
Pune 411 017.
5. B.R. Prajapati, Age 45 years
Residing at Kalbhor Chawl,
Nigdi, Pune 411 019.
6. A.B. Salavi, Age 40 years
Residing at Nehru Nagar,
Pimpri Pune 411 018.
7. J.A. Vibhute, Age 39 years
Residing at C/o, Shantaram Waghere
Chawl, Bhagirath Sadan, Shinde Ali
Pimpri, Pune 411 018.
SUNNY THOTE 1 of 23
::: Uploaded on - 25/07/2025 ::: Downloaded on - 02/08/2025 08:36:36 :::
1-LPA-147-2011-(C).odt
8. S.G. Salvi, Age 40 years
Residing at Indrayani Nagar,
Bhosari, Pune 411 026.
9. M.G. Hirgunde, Age 48 years
Residing at C/o, Shantaram Waghere
Chawl, Pimpri Pune 411 018.
10. S.S. Kalbhor, Age 40 years
Residing at Kalbhore,
Bazar Mala, Dist : Pune
11. V.P. Sathe, Age years
C/o. Samuel Bhaskar Ghorpade,
Ashoka Society Road, Sambhaji Nagar,
Thergaon, Pune 411 033.
12. Samuel Bhaskar Ghorpade, Age 41 years,
Ashoka Society Road, Sambhaji Nagar,
Thergaon, Pune 411 033.
13. R.B. Yadav, Age 38 years
Residing at Kharadwadi Pimpri,
Kamgar Nagar, Pimpri,
Pune 411 018.
14. D.S. Bajare, Age 40 years
Residing at 213/1661, Sony Tukaram
Nagar, Pimpri Pune 411 015.
15. L.M. Inchwade, Age 40 years,
Residing at Nadhe Nagar,
Near Ayappa Mandir, Kale Pimpri,
Pune 411 017.
16. S.R. Mohite, Age years,
Residing at More Vasti, Chikhali
Chinchwad, Pune
17. V.V. Sathe, Age 39 years,
Near Municipal School,
Kharadwadi, Pimpri Pune 411018.
SUNNY THOTE 2 of 23
::: Uploaded on - 25/07/2025 ::: Downloaded on - 02/08/2025 08:36:36 :::
1-LPA-147-2011-(C).odt
18. M.L. Padalikar, Age 56 years,
Vijay Nagar, Kalewadi, Pimpri
Pune 411 018.
19. B.V. Bhule, Age 46 years,
Saste Wadi, Moshi Pune,
Nashik Road, Tal: Haveli, Dist: Pune.
20. B.P. Yadav
Kalewadi, Kalewadi,
Pimpri Pune 411 018.
21. B.S. Gaikwad, Age years,
C/o, Samuel Bhaskar Ghorpade,
Ashoka Society Road, Sambhaji Nagar,
Thergaon, Pune 411 033.
22. K.T. Bhor, Age 36 years,
Avsari Khurd, Tal Bhor, Dist. Pune
23. A.B. Bansode, Age years
C/o, Samuel Bhaskar Ghorpade,
Ashoka Society Road, Sambhaji Nagar,
Thergaon, Pune 411 033.
24. P.L. Jagtap, Age 50 years
New Sangvi, Tal. Haveli,
Dist. Pune.
25. R.B. Pabale, Age 45 years,
Residing at 213, 1654, Sant Tukaram
Nagar, Pimpri, Pune.
26. B.B. Midgule, Age 41 years,
Residing at Midgule Wadi,
Tal: Shirur, Dist. Pune.
27. Sikandar Shaikh, Age years,
Residing at Nehru Nagar,
Pimpri 411 018.
28. D.B. Mishra Age years
C/o. Samuel Bhaskar Ghorpade,
Ashoka Society Road, Sambhaji Nagar,
Thergaon, Pune 411 033. ...RESPONDENTS
SUNNY THOTE 3 of 23
::: Uploaded on - 25/07/2025 ::: Downloaded on - 02/08/2025 08:36:36 :::
1-LPA-147-2011-(C).odt
WITH
CIVIL APPLICATION NO. 327 OF 2013
IN
LETTERS PATENT APPEAL NO. 147 OF 2011
1. S.S. Bhosale (aged 43 years)
Residing at Rupi Nagar, Malusare
Chawl, Nigdi, Pune 19
2. B.G. Najan (aged 38)
Residing at Kalewadi Nadhe
Nagar, Krantiveer Colony, Pimpri
Pune 17
3. B.R. Prajapati, (45 years)
Residing at Kalbhor Chawl,
Nigdi, Pune 19
4. A.B. Salavi, (aged 40 years)
Residing at Nehru Nagar,
Pimpri, Pune 18
5. J.A. Vibhute, (aged 39 years)
Residing at C/o. Shantaram Waghere
Chawl, Bhagirath Sadan, Shinde Ali
Pimpri, Pune 18
6. S.G. Salvi, (aged 40 years)
Residing at Indrayani Nagar,
Bhosari, Pune 26
7. M.G. Hirgund (aged 48 years)
Residing at Shantaram Waghere
Chawl, Pimpri Pune 18
8. S.S. Kalbhor, (aged 40 years)
Residing at Kalbhore,
Bazar Mala, Dist : Pune
9. Samuel Bhaskar Ghorpade, (aged 41 years)
Residing at Ashoka Society Road,
Sambhaji Nagar, Thergaon, Pune-33
10. R.B. Yadav, (aged 38 years)
Residing at Kharadwadi Pimpri,
SUNNY THOTE 4 of 23
::: Uploaded on - 25/07/2025 ::: Downloaded on - 02/08/2025 08:36:36 :::
1-LPA-147-2011-(C).odt
Kamgar Nagar, Pimpri, Pune 18
11. D.S. Bajare, (aged 40 years)
Residing at 213/1661, Sony Tukaram
Nagar, Pimpri Pune 15
12. L.M. Inchwade, (aged 40 years)
Residing at Nadhe Nagar,
Near Ayappa Mandir, Kale Pimpri,
Pune 17
13. S.R. Mohite, (aged )
Residing at More Vasti, Chikhali
Chinchwad, Pune
14. V.V. Sathe, (aged 39 years)
Near Municipal School,
Kharadwadi, Pimpri Pune
15. M.L. Padalilkar, (aged 56 years)
Vijay Nagar, Kalewadi,
Pimpri Pune - 18
16. B.V. Bhule, (aged 46 years)
Saste Wadi, Moshi Pune,
Nashik Road, Tal: Haveli, Dist: Pune
17. B.P. Yadav, (aged 37 years)
Kalewadi, Shri. Nagar,
Pimpri - Pune 18
18. K.T. Bhor, (aged 36 years)
Avsari Khurd, Tal Bhor, Dist. Pune
19. L. Jagtap, (aged 50 years)
New Sangvi, Tal. Haveli,
Dist. Pune
20. R.B. Pabale, (aged 45 years)
Residing at 213, 1654, Sant Tukaram
Nagar, Pimpri, Pune
21. B.B. Midgule, (aged 41 years)
Residing at Midgule Wadi,
Tal: Shirur, Dist. Pune
SUNNY THOTE 5 of 23
::: Uploaded on - 25/07/2025 ::: Downloaded on - 02/08/2025 08:36:36 :::
1-LPA-147-2011-(C).odt
22. Sikandar Shaikh, (aged _____),
Residing at Nehru Nagar,
Pimpri, Pune 18 ...APPLICANTS
(Original Respondents 3 to 26)
IN THE MATTER OF
M/s Mahindra Sintered Products Limited
(Now know as GKN Sinter Metals
Private Limited), 140 Bombay- Pune
Road, Pimpri- Pune 411 018 ...APPELLANT
Versus
1. Bharatiya Kamgar Sena
Sena Bhavan, Dadar, Mumbai
2. Hon'ble Industrial Court,
Maharashtra, Pune
PMT Commercial Building
Swargate, Pune
3. S.S. Bhosale, (aged 43 years)
Residing at Rupi Nagar,
Malusare Chawl, Nigdi,
Pune 411 019.
4. B.G. Najan, (aged 38)
Residing at Kalewadi Nadhe Nagar,
Krantiveer Colony, Pimpri
Pune 17
5. B.R. Prajapati (45 years)
Residing at Kalbhor Chawl,
Nigdi, Pune 19
6. A.B. Salavi, (aged 40 years)
Residing at Nehru Nagar,
Pimpri, Pune 18.
7. J.A. Vibhute, (aged 39 years)
Residing at C/o, Shantaram Waghere
Chawl, Bhagirath Sadan, Shinde Ali
Pimpri, Pune 18
SUNNY THOTE 6 of 23
::: Uploaded on - 25/07/2025 ::: Downloaded on - 02/08/2025 08:36:36 :::
1-LPA-147-2011-(C).odt
8. S.G. Salvi, (aged 40 years)
Residing at Indrayani Nagar,
Bhosari, Pune 26
9. M.G. Hirgund, (aged 48 years)
Residing at Shantaram Waghere Chawl,
Pimpri, Pune 18
10. S.S. Kalbhor, (aged 40 years)
Residing at Kalbhore,
Bazar Mala, Dist : Pune
11. V.P. Sathe
C/o. Samual Bhaskar Ghorpade,
Ashoka Society Road, Sambhaji Nagar,
Kergaon, Pune 33
12. Samuel Bhaskar Ghorpade, (aged 41 years)
Residing at Ashoka Society Road,
Sambhaji Nagar, Thergaon, Pune - 33
13. R.B. Yadav, (aged 38 years)
Residing at Kharadwadi Pimpri,
Kamgar Nagar, Pimpri, Pune - 18
14. D.S. Bajare, (aged 40 years)
Residing at 213/1661, Sony Tukaram
Nagar, Pimpri, Pune - 15
15. L.M. Inchwad, (aged 40 years)
Residing at Nadhe Nagar,
Near Ayappa Mandir, Kale Pimpri,
Pune - 17
16. S.R. Mohite, (aged _____)
Residing at More Vasti, Chikhali
Chinchwad, Pune
17. V.V. Sathe, (aged 39 years)
Near Municipal School,
Kharadwadi, Pimpri Pune
18. M.L. Padalilkar, (aged 56 years)
Vijay Nagar, Kalewadi, Pimpri
Pune - 18
SUNNY THOTE 7 of 23
::: Uploaded on - 25/07/2025 ::: Downloaded on - 02/08/2025 08:36:36 :::
1-LPA-147-2011-(C).odt
19. B.V. Bhule, (aged 46 years)
Saste Wadi, Moshi Pune,
Nashik Road, Tal: Haveli, Dist: Pune
20. B.P. Yadav, (aged 37 years)
Kalewadi, Shri. Nagar,
Pimpri - Pune 18
21. B.S. Gaikwad,
C/o. Samual Bhaskar Ghorpade,
Ashoka Society Road, Sambhaji Nagar,
Kergaon, Pune 33
22. K.T. Bhor, (aged 36 years)
Avsari Budruk, Tal: Bhor, Dist : Pune
23. A.B. Bansode
C/o. Samual Bhaskar Ghorpade
Ashoka Society Road, Sambhaji Nagar,
Kergaon, Pune - 33
24. P.L. Jagtap, (aged 50 years)
New Sangvi, Tal. Haveli,
Dist. Pune
25. R.B. Pabale, (aged 45 years)
Residing at 213, 1654, Sant Tukaram
Nagar, Pimpri, Pune
26. B.B. Midgule, (aged 41 years)
Residing at Midgule Wadi,
Tal: Shirur, Dist : Pune
27. Sikandar Shaikh, (aged _____)
Residing at Neharu Nagar,
Pimpri, Pune 18
28. D.B. Mishra
C/o. Samual Bhaskar Ghorpade,
Ashoka Society Road, Sambhaji Nagar,
Kergaon, Pune 33 ...RESPONDENTS
(Original Respondents 1 to 24)
SUNNY THOTE 8 of 23
::: Uploaded on - 25/07/2025 ::: Downloaded on - 02/08/2025 08:36:36 :::
1-LPA-147-2011-(C).odt
WITH
LETTERS PATENT APPEAL NO. 144 OF 2011
IN
WRIT PETITION NO. 3936 OF 1998
M/s Mahindra Sintered Products Ltd.,
(Now know as GKN Sinter Metals
Private Limited), 140 Bombay - Pune
Road, Pimpri- Pune 411 018 ...APPELLANT
(Original Respondent No.1)
Versus
1. Shri Rajaram Vilas Shendkar
At-and post Pimpri Tal - Purandar,
Dist - Pune
2. Shri Hanumant Sopan More
At - Dhotre, Post - Khamgaon, Tal - Barshi
Dist - Solapur
3. The Member, Industrial Court, Pune
Having office, PMT Bldg., Swargate
Pune - 42 ...RESPONDENTS
(Original Petitioners)
-----
Mr. D.J. Bhanage, a/w Mr. Mayur Joglekar, Advocates for the
Appellant in LPA/147/2011 & LPA/144/2011.
Mr. Arshad Shaikh, Senior Advocate a/w Mr. Ranjit Agashe, Ms.
Namrata Agashe, Mr. Rajendra Jain, Mr. Pranil Lahigade i/by Miss
Vinsha Acharya, Advocate for Respondent Nos.4, 7, 9, 15, 24 & 25.
-----
CORAM : RAVINDRA V. GHUGE
&
GAUTAM A. ANKHAD, JJ.
RESERVED ON : 17th JULY, 2025
PRONOUNCED ON : 25th JULY, 2025
SUNNY THOTE 9 of 23
::: Uploaded on - 25/07/2025 ::: Downloaded on - 02/08/2025 08:36:36 :::
1-LPA-147-2011-(C).odt
JUDGMENT (PER : RAVINDRA V. GHUGE, J.)
1. The first Letters Patent Appeals (hereinafter referred to as the 'LPA'), was admitted by the order dated 12th October, 2011.
Hence, we are admitting the second LPA and both are taken up for hearing with the consent of the parties.
2. We have recorded the oral submissions of the learned Advocate for the Appellant (hereinafter referred to as the 'Company') and the learned Senior Advocate on behalf of the Respondents/Workers (hereinafter referred to as the 'Workers').
3. Two Complaint (ULP) Nos.169 of 1993 and 493 of 1993, were filed U/s. 28 (1) r/w Items 6 and 9 of Schedule IV of the Maharashtra Recognition of Trade Unions and Prevention of Unfair Labour Practices Act, 1971 (hereafter referred to as the '1971 Act'), on 17th June, 1993. The Union and the Workers were Complainants in the said complaints. It was canvassed that the Workers were nomenclatured as casuals and made to work for years together. Each of them had completed more than 240 days in the continued and uninterrupted service of the Company and were, thus, entitled for SUNNY THOTE 10 of 23 ::: Uploaded on - 25/07/2025 ::: Downloaded on - 02/08/2025 08:36:36 ::: 1-LPA-147-2011-(C).odt the benefits under the Standing Order 4-C of the Model Standing Orders, framed under the Industrial Employment (Standing Orders) Act, 1946 (hereinafter referred to as the 'MSO').
4. The Company had entered its written statement in the said complaints and it was canvassed that the Workers were working as casual workmen only when the exigencies of work required their employment. The Company had quality systems in accordance with the international norms, as per the guidelines and standards prescribed for achieving the ISO 9000 certification. The lay-out of the plant was modified for installing the new equipment replacing the old ones. The shifting of the machines and the re-location of service departments were carried out. It was averred that the Workers were working intermittently in between 1991 to May, 1993.
They were not given any employment after the ISO 9000 certification was received by the Company. The Workers were freelancers and were offered work whenever they presented themselves at the Company gates.
5. We find that the substantial oral and documentary evidence recorded before the Industrial Court was available before SUNNY THOTE 11 of 23 ::: Uploaded on - 25/07/2025 ::: Downloaded on - 02/08/2025 08:36:36 ::: 1-LPA-147-2011-(C).odt the Industrial Court while considering the claims of the rival parties.
Wage registers, weekly attendance-cum-wage registers, attendance records, were before the Industrial Court. One of the workmen mentioned in Annexure-A to the complaint, was examined on behalf of the complainants. In his cross-examination, he deposed that 98 workers became the members of the Union. He was working in the Production Department as per the assigned job. He denied that such workers were working as casuals. It was proved before the Industrial Court that they were working as temporaries for more than three years. They were registered Insured Persons (I.Ps.) under the Employees' State Insurance Act, 1948 (hereinafter referred to as the ESIC Act). They received ESIC registration numbers as I.Ps.
They were given bonus and annual increments. In cross-
examination, it was proved that he along with many others, had joined the Company in 1989.
6. Per-contra, the Company had examined five witnesses viz. (i) Manager, Production Planning and Control, (ii) Supervisor -
Plant No.2, (iii) Manager, (iv) Personnel Officer, and (v) Executive Director of the Company. The deposition of these Management witnesses established that the workers were working as temporary SUNNY THOTE 12 of 23 ::: Uploaded on - 25/07/2025 ::: Downloaded on - 02/08/2025 08:36:36 ::: 1-LPA-147-2011-(C).odt employees, but were nomenclatured as casuals. The job description of the Workers was also narrated by the witnesses. However, it was canvassed that the recruitment of such workers was not on any temporary or permanent vacancy. The workers were cleaning floors, cutting grass, doing pre-monsoon work, watering the plants, quarterly and annual inventory, etc..
7. The Industrial Court analyzed the oral and documentary evidence thread-bare and concluded that 26 workmen from the two complaints had proved their contentions. They were entitled to the benefits of MSO 4-C and a consequential order of granting permanency. Two workers were held disentitled to any benefits.
8. It would be appropriate to observe that the MSO are applicable to Private Sector Industries, unlike the Public Sector Industries where in no workmen can be granted permanency merely by completing 240 days in continuous employment in a calendar year. In Private Sector Industries, considering attending circumstances and the availability of work, those workers who have completed 240 days in continuous employment in each calendar year, for a few years, would be entitled for the benefit of the MSO SUNNY THOTE 13 of 23 ::: Uploaded on - 25/07/2025 ::: Downloaded on - 02/08/2025 08:36:36 ::: 1-LPA-147-2011-(C).odt 4-C.
9. Standing Order 4-C, reads as under :-
"4-C. A badli or temporary workman who has put in 190 days' uninterrupted service in the aggregate in any establishment of seasonal nature or 240 days "uninterrupted service" in the aggregate in any other establishment, during a period of preceding twelve calendar months, shall be made permanent in that establishment by order in writing signed by the Manager, or any person authorised in that behalf by the Manager, irrespective of whether or not his name is on the muster roll of the establishment throughout the period of the said twelve calendar months.
Explanation. - for purpose of this clause any period of interrupted service, caused by cessation of work which is not due to any fault of the workman concerned, shall not be counted for the purpose of computing 190 days or 240 days, or, as the case may be for making as badli or temporary workman permanent.
10. The definitions of Temporary and Casual workmen are provided under MSO 3, which read thus :-
"3(d) 'Temporary workman' means a workman who has appointed for a limited period for work which is of an essentially temporary nature and who is employed temporarily as an additional workman in connection with temporary increase in work of a permanent nature.
3(e) 'Causal workman' means a workman who is employed for any work which is not incidental to, or SUNNY THOTE 14 of 23 ::: Uploaded on - 25/07/2025 ::: Downloaded on - 02/08/2025 08:36:36 ::: 1-LPA-147-2011-(C).odt connected with the main work of manufacturing process carried on in the establishment and which is essentially of a casual nature."
11. In the above backdrop, we have considered the Judgment dated 30th June, 1997 delivered by the Industrial Court and the Judgment dated 22nd February, 2011 delivered by the learned Single Judge Bench (Coram : Smt. Nishita Mhatre, J.), in Writ Petition No.3859 of 1997, along with Writ Petition No.3936 1998.
The first Petition was filed by the Company and the second Petition was filed by two workers namely, Rajaram Vilas Shendkar and Hanumant Sopan More.
12. A well reasoned Judgment of the Industrial Court was assailed by the Company in Writ Petition No.3859 of 1997. The two Workers namely, Mr. Shendkar and Mr. More, preferred Writ Petition No.3936 of 1998, since they were not granted permanency.
13. The learned Single Judge has considered the extensive submissions of the Company and the Workers, and duly considered the entire Judgment of the Industrial Court, in the backdrop of the oral and documentary evidence. In fact, the learned Single Judge SUNNY THOTE 15 of 23 ::: Uploaded on - 25/07/2025 ::: Downloaded on - 02/08/2025 08:36:36 ::: 1-LPA-147-2011-(C).odt was exercising revisional jurisdiction under the Writ of Certiorari (Article 227 of the Constitution of India), akin to the revisional powers of the Industrial Court U/s. 44 of the 1971 Act. Yet, the entire record and proceedings were revisited by the learned Single Judge and a reasoned extensive Judgment was delivered on 22 nd February, 2011. The Petition preferred by the Company was dismissed and the Petition preferred by the two workers, was allowed. Hence, the 2 LPAs by the Company.
14. We deem it apposite to reproduce Paragraph Nos.11 to 21 of the Judgment of the learned Single Judge, hereunder :-
"11. The Industrial Court has held that there was sufficient evidence on record to indicate that the workmen were employed as temporary employees and not casual workmen. It has been held that the evidence on record indicates that the workers were employed not only for the work which was undertaken for the ISO- 9000 certification but also for other types of jobs including in the production unit. In my opinion, the Industrial Court has not committed any error in appreciating the evidence. Unless the Company is able to demonstrate some perversity in the findings of the Industrial Court, there is no need to interfere with those findings in the writ jurisdiction of this Court. It is well settled that, if a particular view has been taken by the Tribunal or the Industrial Court, this Court should be slow to interfere with the order only because another view was possible, while exercising its jurisdiction under Article 227 of the Constitution of India.
SUNNY THOTE 16 of 23 ::: Uploaded on - 25/07/2025 ::: Downloaded on - 02/08/2025 08:36:36 ::: 1-LPA-147-2011-(C).odt
12. Mr. Bhanage however was unable to point out any perversity in the judgement. He was at pains to submit that the evidence has not been weighed properly by the Court. Only one casual workman was examined on behalf of the union, whereas the evidence led on behalf of the Company consisted of the depositions of five responsible officers, harped Mr. Bhanage. He submits that the Industrial Court has erred in relying on the evidence of just one witness examined on behalf of the Union. This submission of Mr. Bhanage is untenable. Merely because one witness is examined by a party before the Court and his adversary leads the evidence of five witnesses, the scales of justice do not tilt towards the party who examines more witnesses. Quantity does not outweigh the quality of evidence. There are discrepancies and contradictions in the statements of the witnesses for the Company. One witness has stated that no record was maintained by his department as to the work allotted to casual workmen on a particular day. Another Witness has stated that the requisition slips were filled in by each department and it was only thereafter that the workers were allotted the work in that particular department, depending on the exigencies. Further more, one of its witness has stated that the casual workmen i.e. the workmen involved in the complaint were employed for the work of the annual inventory, weekly cleaning of floors and premises, washing glasses, pre-monsoon work and watering to the plants. Thus this work is perennial in nature.
13. In my opinion, there is sufficient evidence on record to indicate that the workmen were employed as temporary employees and not as casual workers. There is also material on record to establish the fact that these workmen were employed for over one and half years as temporary employees and, therefore, they would be entitled to relief.
14. Item 6 of Schedule IV reads as follows:
SUNNY THOTE 17 of 23 ::: Uploaded on - 25/07/2025 ::: Downloaded on - 02/08/2025 08:36:36 ::: 1-LPA-147-2011-(C).odt "To employ employees as "badlis", casuals or temporaries and to continue them as such for years, with the object of depriving them of the status and privileges of permanent employees."
The word used in the item is "years". However, the legislature in its wisdom has chosen not to define the period. Any length of time which is more than one year would be governed by this item, provided the workmen are able to establish that they were employed as badlis, casuals or temporaries only with a view to deprive them of the status and wages of permanent employees. The intention to deprive them must be either express or implicit. In the present case, the fact that these workmen were employed not only for the ISO 9000 certification but for other work as well, would indicate that the work was available with the Company on a perennial basis. The description of the work done by these employees mentioned in the deposition of one of the witness for the Company indicates that the work is of a permanent nature. The very fact that these workmen were employed as temporary employees for more than one and half years, despite the work of a permanent nature being available, indicates that the intention of the Company was to deprive them of the status of permanency. In the case of Chief Conservator of Forests & anr. v/s Jagannath Maruti Kondhare, reported in 1996 1 C.L.R. 680, the Supreme Court has held thus -
"22. We have given our due thought to the aforesaid rival contentions according to us, the object of the State Act, inter alia, being prevention of certain unfair labour practices, the same would be thwarted or get frustrated if such a burden is placed on a workman which he cannot reasonably discharge. In our opinion, it would be permissible on facts of a particular case to draw the inference mentioned in the second part of the item, if badlis, casuals or temporaries are continued as such for SUNNY THOTE 18 of 23 ::: Uploaded on - 25/07/2025 ::: Downloaded on - 02/08/2025 08:36:36 ::: 1-LPA-147-2011-(C).odt years. We further state that the present was such a case in as much as from the materials on record we are satisfied that the 25 workmen who went to Industrial Court of Pune (and 15 to Industrial Court, Ahmednagar) had been kept as casuals for long years with the primary object of depriving them the status of permanent employees in as much as giving of this status would have required the employer to pay the workmen at a rate higher than the one fixed under the Minimum Wages Act. We can think of no other possible object as, it may be remembered that the Pachgaon Parwati Scheme was intended to cater to the recreational and educational aspirations also of the populace, which are not ephemeral objects, but par excellence permanent. We would say the same about environment-pollution-care work of Ahmednagar, whose need is on increase because of increase in pollution. Permanency is thus writ large on the fact of both the types of work. If, even in such projects, persons are kept in jobs on casual basis for years the object manifests itself; no scrutiny is required. (Emphasis supplied), We, therefore, answer the second question also against the appellants." (Emphasis supplied)
15. Mr. Bhanage was at pains to point out that none of these employees have completed 240 days in service. However, this is not a precondition for assessing whether an unfair labour practice has been committed under Item 6 of Schedule IV of the Act. As held in the case of Burroughs Welcome (I) Ltd. V/s. D.H. Ghosle & ors., reported in 2000 (III) C.L.R. 264, by a learned Single Judge of this Court, extraneous tests cannot be included in order to ascertain whether there is an unfair labour practice under Item 6 of Schedule IV of the Act. Rendering work for 240 days is not a pre- requisite to establish an unfair labour practice under Item 6 of Schedule IV of the Act.
SUNNY THOTE 19 of 23 ::: Uploaded on - 25/07/2025 ::: Downloaded on - 02/08/2025 08:36:36 ::: 1-LPA-147-2011-(C).odt
16. Mr. Bhanage has tried to submit that the judgement in the case of Punjabrao Krishi Vidyapeeth (supra) has not been considered by the Industrial Court in a proper manner. He submitted that it has been held in this judgement that unless there is a deliberate act on the part of the employer with tangible evidence to show that there was an intention to deprive the employees of the permanency status, it would not amount to an unfair labour practice under Item 6 of Schedule IV of the MRTU & PULP Act.
17. I have perused the judgement of the Industrial Court. In my view, the Industrial Court has taken into account the principles of law enunciated in the judgement of the Punjabrao Krishi Vidyapeeth (supra). It has assessed the evidence in the light of these principles. On the basis of this assessment, it has concluded that the employees had worked on a temporary basis for almost two years although the work of a permanent nature was available. The Industrial Court has observed that the circumstances and the conduct of the Company indicated that the object of employing workmen as temporaries or casuals was to deprive them of their permanent status. The appointment orders which were produced on record by the Union have been considered by the Industrial Court. It has held that these appointment orders do not mention that they had been engaged only for the ISO- 9000 certification or the work similar to that.
18. In my opinion, therefore, there is no need to interfere with this finding of the Industrial Court that there was an intention to deprive them of the permanent status.
19. Further more, Mr. Bapat has submitted, with merit, that the Model Standing Order 4-D having been violated would indicate the intention of the employer to deprive the workmen of permanent status. The Model Standing Order 4 D makes it incumbent on the Company to maintain a list of employees who are SUNNY THOTE 20 of 23 ::: Uploaded on - 25/07/2025 ::: Downloaded on - 02/08/2025 08:36:36 ::: 1-LPA-147-2011-(C).odt engaged as temporary workmen. Such a list must contain particulars with regard to the names and addresses of the workmen, the nature of work or occupation under which they were employed, the wages paid to them during the employment period, and the dates of termination of their services. The Standing Order further provides that me whenever a vacancy arises in the establishment, preference should be given to those on the waiting list on the basis of the aggregate of their services engaged prior to termination. A person whose name is not contained in the waiting list cannot be appointed unless all the persons included in the list have been provided employment. In the present case, admittedly, no such waiting list was maintained in which names of these workmen were included. Had such a list be maintained, the workmen would have been enable to work for a longer period of time than they have. The fact that they were deprived of this opportunity to work with the company by engaging "freelancers" indicates that the intention of the company was to deprive them of the permanent status.
20. As regards Item 9 of Schedule IV, from a perusal of the chart which was filed before the Industrial Court indicating the number of days put in by the employees as maintained by the union and the Company, it appears that none of these employees have actually completed 240 days in service in the preceding calendar year. Therefore, the Model Standing Order 4-C would not come into play, the pre-condition of completion of 240 days in service not having been fulfilled. In my opinion, the Industrial Court has erred in declaring that there is an unfair labour practice under Item 9 of Schedule IV because the Standing Order 4-C has been violated. There is in fact a violation of Standing Order 4-D. In considering this fact the Industrial Court, though right in its assessment that there is an unfair labour practice under Item 9, is not correct when it concludes that there is a breach of Standing Order 4-C. Even in respect of the petitioners in Writ Petition No.3936 of 1998 it appears that neither of SUNNY THOTE 21 of 23 ::: Uploaded on - 25/07/2025 ::: Downloaded on - 02/08/2025 08:36:36 ::: 1-LPA-147-2011-(C).odt them have completed 240 days in service. Therefore, it is obvious that there is no unfair labour practice because of a violation of Standing Order 4-C. However, there is certainly a violation of Standing Order 4-D. The Company has produced a document showing that only seven employees were on the waiting list on 27.9.1993, because, according to the Company these workmen were temporary, whereas the workmen concerned in the complaint were casual. I have already held that these workmen could not have been treated as casual workmen as they were in fact temporary workmen. There can be no doubt that not maintaining a waiting list containing their names amounts to an unfair labour practice under Item 9 of Schedule IV of the Act.
21. The only reason mentioned by the Industrial Court for not granting relief to the petitioners in Writ Petition No.3936 of 1998 is that they had not completed 240 days in service. I have already held that the relief under Item 6 of Schedule IV of the MRTU & PULP Act cannot be denied to a workman only because he does not work for 240 days. Therefore, this conclusion of the Industrial Court has to be set aside. The petitioners in Writ Petition No.3936 of 1998 are entitled to the same relief as the other workmen."
15. The Hon'ble Supreme Court has held in Syed Yakoob V/s. K.S. Radhakrishnan, AIR 1964 SC 477 and Surya Dev Rai V/s.
Ram Chander Rai, AIR 2003 SC 3044, that merely because a different view could be possible, an impugned Judgment cannot be branded as being perverse or illegal. In the case in hands, we do not find even a remote possibility of a second view taking into account the oral and documentary evidence analyzed by the Industrial Court, SUNNY THOTE 22 of 23 ::: Uploaded on - 25/07/2025 ::: Downloaded on - 02/08/2025 08:36:36 ::: 1-LPA-147-2011-(C).odt as well as by the learned Single Judge. The scope of judicial review in an LPA is further restricted and interference can be caused only if the findings recorded are perverse and illegal.
16. In view of the above, both these Letters Patent Appeals are dismissed.
17. Pending Civil Application would not survive and stands disposed off.
(GAUTAM A. ANKHAD, J.) (RAVINDRA V. GHUGE, J.)
SUNNY THOTE 23 of 23
::: Uploaded on - 25/07/2025 ::: Downloaded on - 02/08/2025 08:36:36 :::