Sunil Pralhad Khomane And Ors vs M/S.Bajaj Auto Ltd on 1 February, 2021
Mr.
Singhvi, for the Petitioners, submits that Rohini Kurghode's case is decided
per incurium and not a good law. This question, however, need not be
debated for the purposes of the present order for the following reasons.
Firstly, I have already held that having regard to the rotational pattern
22 / 52
sg/sat wp4502-06&group.doc
adopted by the Respondent, the engagements and terminations, both prior
and the last, cannot come under the saving clause (bb) of Section 2(oo) of
the ID Act. Secondly, I also hold, as may be seen from the following order,
that earlier engagements and terminations of the second party workmen
did form part of the references and were very much needed to be
considered for adjudicating the industrial disputes referred to the Labour
Courts here. There is, accordingly, no question, as a mater of fact, of any
conflict between Standing Order 4-C and Section 2(oo) (bb) of the ID Act,
or of any acquiescence or waiver on the part of the workmen here. There
is, therefore, no warrant for applying the law stated in Rohini Kurghode to
the facts of our case.