SIDRAM Vs. ALSTOM PROJECTS INDIA LIMITED

JUDGEMENT

(1.) The petitioners in these petitions are challenging the order dated 10th July 2012 passed by Labour Court in Reference No. 72 of 2011 and further made a prayer to reinstate them into service with all consequential benefits.

(2.) The petitioners, after completion of apprentice-ship, were got appointed in the year 2004 as Moulders. Initial appointment was for a period of six months in the nature of contract and thereafter successfully fresh appointment orders were issued after completion of contractual period. Like this, they have completed about six years of service and thereafter a reference in No. 72 of 2011 was sought on the file of the Labour Court at Gulbarga for regularisation of their services and pending adjudication, the services of the petitioners have been terminated as per order Annexure-F dated 27th August 2011. The said order of termination is under challenge in these petitions on the following grounds.

(3.) Firstly, that the termination order is contrary to Section 33A of the Industrial Disputes Act, 1947 (hereinafter referred to 'the Act' as short). It is submitted that when adjudication is pending before the competent Court, the services should not have been terminated. Hence, the action of the respondent is contrary to the provisions of law. Secondly, the continuance of the services of the petitioners beyond the contractual period for about six years with break attract Section 25F of the Act. Thirdly, the case of the petitioners fall under item 10 of the Fifth Schedule of the Act which contemplates to employ workmen as 'badlis', casuals or temporaries and to continue them as such for years, with the object of depriving them of the status and privileges of permanent workmen. The continuance of the petitioners beyond the contractual period for about six years is to be presumed, as they are permanent for the purpose of item 10 of the Fifth Schedule of the Act. The Learned counsel further submits that the respondent has improperly invoked Section 2(oo)(bb) of the Act. In support of the said submission, the learned counsel relied upon the unreported judgment of the Hon'ble Supreme Court in the case of Sudarshan Rajpoot v. U.P. State Road Transport Corporation in Civil Appeal Nos. 10353-10354 of 2014 disposed of on 18th November 2014. He also relied upon the judgment in the case of Maharashtra State Road Transport Corporation and Another v. Casteribe Rajya P. Karmachari Sangahatana, 2009 123 FLR 136wherein it has been held that the impugned action of the respondent-Corporation in terminating the services falls under item No. 10 of the Fifth Schedule of the Act and the respondent is prohibited from invoking the workmen as badli, casual or temporary workers to work on permanent basis.