Indian Kanoon - Search engine for Indian Law

4. As a result of the introduction of this new pattern of work, not a single workman was made permanent from and after August, 1984. The strength of permanent workmen which stood around 8000 in 1981, declined to about 6088 in 1990 as a result of natural separation caused by retirements, deaths, resignations and dismissals, but the ensuing permanent vacancies were not filled up, though the production continuously kept rising during the said period. More than about 700 temporary workmen were engaged on seven months contract at any given time of the year. The vacant permanent posts were neither abolished, nor were they filled up. It is the case of the workmen that the permanent and perennial work, which was formerly done by permanent workmen who had ceased to be in service, was got done by temporary workmen who were appointed on seven months contracts. These temporary workmen were hired by rotation as Assemblers, Machinists, Grinders, Press shop Operators, Welders and Carpenters. Though, according to the workmen initially, a handful of temporary workmen were engaged as Helpers, subsequently, by the mid and late 1990, all temporary workmen were employed only on permanent and perennial work of Metal Pressing, Assembly, Welding, Machining, Grinding and Carpentry and not a single temporary workman was hired as a Helper. It is the case of the workmen that inspection of the musters and records of the Company would reveal that while about 33 seven-month temporary workmen were employed on 1st January 1986, this number progressively increased to about 983 seven-month temporary workmen as on 15th August 1997. This system of appointment of temporary workmen for short spans of seven months and thereafter discontinuing their service led to disaffection and dissatisfaction amongst the workmen.

9. On 22nd October, 1997, 3rd November, 1997 and 4th November, 1997, the Industrial Court heard interim relief applications in 301 complaints filed by other temporary workmen and rejected them by three separate orders. The interim relief sought therein was continuation in service pending disposal of the main complaints. Despite rejecting the prayers for interim relief, the Industrial Court continued the ad interim orders of continuing the temporary workmen in service to enable them to approach this Court. The concerned 301 temporary workmen filed Writ Petition No. 5257 of 1997, Writ Petition No. 5491 of 1997 and writ petition No. 5834 of 1997 challenging the three orders of the Industrial Court, Pune.

22. The Division Bench of this Court (B.N. Srikrishna and Dr. P.D. Upasani, JJ.) allowed Writ Petition No. 4404 of 1998 and the Rule granted therein was made absolute by consent of both sides reserving liberty to the Company to raise objections regarding jurisdiction to grant reliefs before the Industrial Court in the case of temporary workmen who had been removed from service during the pendency of their complaints.

23. On 3rd September 1998, the Division Bench of this Court (B.N. Srikrishna and Dr. P.D. Upasani, JJ.) disposed of Civil Application No. 8482 of 1997 filed in Letters Patent Appeal No. 212 of 1997 with liberty reserved to the petitioners/Applicants therein to seek interim reliefs afresh if the Industrial Court ultimately declines relief to the 301 terminated temporary workmen on the ground of jurisdiction. On 11th September, 1998, the said Division Bench clarified its order and directed that the Industrial Court should allow the amendment applications made by the temporary workmen and dispose of the complaints finally within a period of three weeks.

25. Writ Petition No. 5536 of 1998 and Writ Petition No. 5550 of 1998 were admitted by the learned Single Judge of this Court, but interim stay of the operation of the Industrial Court's order was refused to the Company and similarly no interim relief was granted to the 301 temporary workmen who were out of service. The result was that the status quo continued with 401 temporary workmen continuing in service, while 301 temporary workmen were out of service.

26. On 24th December, 1999, the learned Single Judge (R.J. Kochar, J.) delivered judgment allowing the Company's Writ Petition No. 5550 of 1998, and dismissing the workmen's Writ Petition No. 5536 of 1998. The workmen have challenged the order of the learned Single Judge by the present Letters Patent Appeal No. 19 of 2000 and Letters Patent Appeal No. 20 of 2000. The Company has also filed Letters Patent Appeal No. 118 of 2000 and Letters Patent Appeal No. 119 of 2000 challenging the directions contained in paragraph 19(i) to (iii) as under :--