Indian Kanoon - Search engine for Indian Law

As a result of foregoing discussion, all these three appeals are summarily dismissed. The learned single Judge had directed the appellant to submit a scheme for consideration of the Tribunal with regard to extending permanent status to the workmen in question and the like workmen employed under it within a period of two months from the date of receipt of writ of the judgment and order, but, since the above direction was given way back in the month of April, 1997, we direct the appellant to submit a scheme for consideration of the Tribunal with regard to extending permanent status to the workmen in question and the like workmen employed under it within a period of one month from the date of receipt of writ of this order, and the Tribunal shall thereafter make an award within three months after inviting objections and suggestions from the respective parties. There shall be no order as to costs.

It is also true that the facts of the present case have also similar shade as was in the case of Chief Conservator of Forests and another Vs. Jagannath Maruti Kondhara reported in 1996(1) LLJ 1223 to prime facie reach a conclusion about the unfair labour practice in depriving the workmen of their status of permanency and privileges attached thereto.

It further records that the Tribunal has not adverted to some of the questions which implicitly arises in any industrial dispute concerning grant of permanent status. It records that no opportunity was given to the employer after reaching this conclusion of giving workmen permanent status hence these issues require investigation. Thus it set aside the finding of the Tribunal to make all workmen permanent w.e.f. the date they complete 10 years on or before 1st January, 1993 and directed it to decide this question afresh through a scheme. But the direction to make payment to such workmen at the minimum pay scale of similarly situated workmen on permanent basis remained unaffected. This direction was confirmed by the Division Bench of the High Court.

The learned single judge observed that the Tribunal had not taken into consideration certain relevant aspects notwithstanding that such question implicitly arises in a case of industrial dispute concerning grant of permanent status and emoluments and privileges attached there to by the workmen under the Industrial Dispute Act, nor the Tribunal had considered after reaching the conclusion about long duration of work and existence of permanent work the extent to which permanent nature of work is available in each trade and corresponding necessity of number of permanent workmen to discharge that work before directing the employer to make all the workmen as permanent on completion of 10 years of service as on 1.1.1993 nor thereafter if they were in service prior to the date of making of reference, nor does it appear from the award that in the first instance any opportunity was given to the employer after reaching the conclusion about necessity for making the concerned workmen permanent to discharge its managerial obligation for framing a scheme or making such employees permanent and placing before the Tribunal. These issues require investigation into further facts and depend upon evidence of variable nature which can be led before the Tribunal.