Document Fragment View

Matching Fragments

None of the demands referred to the Tribunal including the aforesaid demand No. 4 suggested hat they related to the seasonal employees. All he demands were in relation to the perennial employees. The statement of claim filed in the Reference by the Union on behalf of the work-men, did not also refer anywhere to the seasonal employees. On the other hand, in relation to the aforesaid demand for permanency, it referred to ill temporary workmen and specifically pointed out that at that time, there were about 400 workmen who had put in more than five years' service. But still they were termed as temporary. It also observed that the work of the Marketing Federation had increased considerably and it required a large number of permanent staff, and hat the services of the temporary workmen could be terminated at any time which was in-equitable. In its written statement, the Marketing Federation also proceeded on the basis that ill the said demands related only to the perennial employees. While, however, referring to the aforesaid demand for permanency, the written statement observed as follows:
12. It would be rather surprising for any authority to moot that such a gigantic organisation like Federation (employing about 3000 number of workmen) throughout the State of Maharashtra is having majority of the workmen as temporary workmen. The Union further points out that there are about 400 workmen who have put in more than 5 years service but still they have been termed as "temporary" workmen by the Federation. The Union further points out that the business of the Federation is stable and has been continued progressively and, therefore, it is desirable that such of the workmen who have put in three months aggregate or who have put in 78 days minimum service in aggregate in spite of any (breaks) should be confirmed as permanent workmen.
13. It is a matter of regret that there are many workmen who have put in long number of years of service are being continued as temporary workmen, and, therefore, in the interest of justice, equity and fair play the demand may be given due consideration by the authorities itself. It is respectfully submitted that the work of the Federation has increased considerably during last seven years and the new projects have been coming up every now and then which require a large number of permanent staff and, therefore, it is necessary to make the workmen permanent as demanded by the Union. The Union further points out that service of temporary workmen on the ground of being a temporary can be terminated at any time in spite of the fact that such workman has put in a number of years of service, which is inequitable, unjust and improper and that under the circumstances the demand of the Union is just and proper.

16. This would show that the Union was concerned with the temporary perennial workmen and not with seasonal workmen. The Union knew that even among the perennial workmen there were some permanent and others temporary and they were espousing the cause of the said temporary workmen. That is also clear from the facts that the demand is raised in the context of the alleged requirement of the large number of permanent staff. The Union was particular in pointing out that the temporary workmen could be terminated at any time. As regards the seasonal employees, their services are terminated every year, after every season, and they are re-engaged according to the seniority list for the successive seasons. Therefore, the statement made in the statement of claim could not even remotely be connected with the seasonal employees. If at all the meaning of the said two paragraphs is stretched, it can at best be construed to refer to the temporary seasonal employees and not to the permanent seasonal employees. In that case, it would only mean that the Union wanted the temporary seasonal employees to be made permanent seasonal employees. But that is not how either the demand or the statement of claim can be read, and we do not read them so. Now coming to paragraph 10 in the written statement of the Marketing Federation, in paragraph 9, it showed its willingness to make permanent those employees who had completed three years of continuous service. This showed that even the Federation had understood the demand as relating only to the perennial employees and not to seasonal employees. In that Paragraph the Federation also pointed out that the Union's demand for making permanent the employees who had put in three months' continuous service was not justified since the said period was too short to judge the capacity and ability of the employee. These statements in paragraph 9 make it clear that knowing fully well that it had also seasonal employees who had to be continued from season to season for seasonal work, the Federation could not have made the statement in connection with the permanent seasonal employees. Paragraph 10 of the written statement has, therefore, to be read in that context. In further support of its opposition to the Union's demand, the Federation went on to point put that it required for carrying out its activities workmen both on temporary basis and on seasonal basis depending upon the nature of the workload. It then went on to point out the no period should be laid down in respect of such purely temporary and seasonal employees and the rule of permanency should apply only to employees who are recruited against the permanent posts and that it should not apply to purely temporary or casual employees or seasonal employees. Read as a whole, these statements made in paragraph 10 will also show that if at all the seasonal employees were in the contemplation of the Marketing Federation, they were the temporary seasonal employees and not the permanent seasonal employees. By the very nature of their employment, the temporary seasonal employees can be made permanent only as permanent seasonal employees and not as permanent perennial employees. In any case, it is difficult to sustain the argument that the Federation was there referring to the permanency of the permanent seasonal employees. What is further, the Patankar Award does not even refer to the seasonal employees. It also does not make any distinction between the two and give reasons either to accept or reject the contentions of the parties. It merely summarises the arguments of the parties and gives a direction which is quoted above. The operative portion reads "considering, therefore, the arguments advanced on both sides, it appears that it would be proper to direct that those employees who have put in 240 days of continuous service be treated as permanent employees". The direction can be read either as a direction to make the temporary perennial employees and temporary seasonal employees as permanent perennial employees and temporary seasonal employees respectively or as a direction relating only to the temporary perennial employees. But in no case, it can be read as a direction to make seasonal employees as permanent employees as in the nature of things such a direction could not have been given. There are other reasons why the Tribunal could not have given such a direction and if such a direction was given, it would have been highly inequitous and discriminatory to the perennial employees, whether temporary or permanent. On the undisputed fact, that the procurement and processing operations under the Cotton Scheme do not last for more than 4 to 6 months and in any case not more than 8 months, to make the seasonal employees permanent and give them all the benefits of the perennial employees would mean that they would get the salary and all other benefits throughout the year as the perennial employees do, without putting in work throughout the year as the latter have to do. On the admitted fact that there is a need of seasonal employees and there is no work available to be given to them for a part of the year, the Cotton Scheme has always to maintain a distinction between the perennial employees and seasonal employees and has to provide them with different service conditions though some of the service conditions may be common. It is the failure to understand the nature of the operations and the nature of the employment required under the Cotton Scheme which is responsible for the impugned decisions of the Industrial Court and the High Court.