Indian Kanoon - Search engine for Indian Law

21.3 In the case of Bangalore Metropolitan Transport Corporation v/s. T.V. Anandappa reported in [2009] 17 SCC 473 though wording in the head-note is attractive when it reads that Badli worker has no right under the Act and that Labour Court should not have adjudicated the dispute, scrutiny of this small judgment makes it clear that even though the employee in such reported case was Badli Conductor, he was not retrenched from the service, but a disciplinary inquiry was conducted against him with regard to his unauthorized absence from duty and his name was ordered to be removed from the list of Badli Conductor. Moreover, there was delay of about 4 years in challenging such order and though specific objection was raised before the Labour Court, the Labour Court has failed to consider the issue of delay and even the charges framed and proved against the workman about his unauthorized absence from duty for long period, have not been considered by the Labour Court while passing the award. Therefore, while allowing the appeal, the Hon'ble Supreme Court has specifically stated in a small order that in the peculiar facts of the case, there is no scope for inclusion of the name of the respondent in the list of Badli Conductor and there is no question of any continuity of service. Therefore, this judgment is based upon the peculiar facts of that case, whereby in fact name of the workman was removed from the list of Badli employee after conducting disciplinary inquiry for unauthorized absence from duty intermittently for a long period. Whereas in our case, though name of the respondent no. 1 is there in the list of Badli Sepoy and though there is an office memorandum to absorb such Badli Sepoy, as already recorded hereinabove, the petitioner has entered into unfair labour practice by issuing office memorandum dated 28/2/1988 conveying all the Branch Managers not to employ any Badli Sepoy so as to allow them to complete 240 days in a year.

21.4 Prakash Cotton Mills Pvt. Ltd. v/s. Rashtriya Mills Mazdoor Sangh reported in [1986] 3 SCC 588 though the case is again pertaining to Badli workman, it is altogether on a different footing, inasmuch as in such reported case the issue was regarding payment of compensation for the closure of the industrial unit. It is certain and clear that in our case there is neither the issue of payment for compensation nor the employer unit has closed its activities. Hence reported case will not help the petitioner.