V. S. Sirpurkar, J. - (1.) The petitioner, Sandeep Metalcraft Private Limited is a Private Limited Company, operating factory in Industrial Area, Hingna Road, Nagpur(here-in-after referred to as 'the Company'). The original complainant; respondent No. 1 (hereinafter referred to as 'the respondent) claims to be a worker. In the present petition, the Company has challenged the order passed by the Industrial Court, Nagpur, by which the Industrial Court allowed the application of the respondent made under the provisions of the Maharashtra Recognition of Trade Unions and Prevention of Unfair Labour Practices Act, 1971 (hereinafter referred to as 'the Act'), and more particularly under section 30(2) thereof, for the interim relief. By the impugned order, the Industrial Court has allowed the said application and has directed the Company not to terminate the service of the respondent during the pendency of the case. It is, however, clarified in its order that the Company is at liberty to retrench the respondent after following the due procedure of law under the Industrial Disputes Act, 1947. The basic facts, which are essential for unfolding the rival contentions are as under :
(2.) That, the Company has been running a factory from November, 1989. The Company caters to the orders of the Ordnance Factories and can be easily called an ancillary industry. It manufactures ammunition, hardware and weapon-parts for the Defence Ministry. It is the claim of the company that the said range of activity is extremely wide and the Company has to manufacture very wide range of spare parts of the fire-arms. It claims that the said manufacture is of extremely specialised type and at times the said manufacturing process is so complex that the manufacturer has to engage in more than 40 to 45 operators. It is further contended that the finished products of the Company are tested very meticulously by the experts in the Defence Ministry and more particularly by the Defence Service Inspectors. It is claimed that if there is even a slightest defect in the said finished goods, the said goods have to be discarded as the scrap and they cannot be used anywhere else. In short, the case of the Company is that it has to train its workers first and it is only after the successful training that the Company can take the risk of appointing such trainee as a worker on probation, and it is only after it is found that the trainee or the probationer has completed the training successfully and has worked to its satisfaction, then alone he can be confirmed.
(3.) The respondent had applied to the employers Company and he was appointed as a trainee worker by an order dated 11-6-1992. Initially the said training was to continue for six months. In the initial appointment order, there is a clause at serial No. 4 mentioning the training period to be of six months which was extendable by six months. At paragraph-9 in this order, it is clarified that on successful completion of training, the incumbent may be considered for absorption in service. It is an admitted position that the respondent started his training in the Company from the date of the order. However, the Company probably was not satisfied with his training and granted him the first extension on 22-12-1992. He could not probably be properly trained and, therefore, second extension was granted to him on 8-4-1993. One year period for which the respondent was appointed elapsed on 26-5-1993, on which day, a letter seems to have been addressed to the Company by the respondent, wherein he claimed that he was working as a semi-skilled trainee from 27-6-1992 and his training period was over on 26-5-1993 and since he was in the need of the service, he should be appointed on probation as a semi-skilled worker. It is further his case that a letter of appointment was given to him on 25-5-1993 itself. In that letter of appointment, the respondent was kept on probation of three months and his probation was to end on 25-8-1993. However, a month prior to this date, i.e., somewhere on 21-7-1993, the respondent approached the Industrial Court by way of an application under Section 28 of the Act, praying for various reliefs. In his complaint, he claimed that, in fact, he was not a trainee and was a worker and, therefore, since he had started work right from 11-6-1992, he had completed 240 days' employment and, thus, he was continuously in service. He further claimed that, therefore, since he was working as a worker for more than 240 days, he had to be made permanent and, therefore, the order passed by the Company, dated 26-5-1993, was an illegal order. The date of the order is wrongly mentioned in the complaint as 27-5-1993. The respondent claimed that in issuing an appointment order on probation, the Company has shown favouritism to one set of employees as against another and, therefore, had committed an unfair labour practice as envisaged by Item 5 of Sch. IV of the Act. He further claimed in his complaint that by the instant action, the Company has breached the Model Standing Orders applicable to it as it was admittedly governed by the provisions of the Bombay Industrial Relations Act, 1946. According to him, since the Model Standing Orders were breached and since they amounted to an agreement, it amounted to a breach of agreement. He inter alia, pointed out that under the Model Standing Orders, there are only seven categories of operatives contemplated, and a trainee could not be said to be an 'operative', and he being a trainee was not coverable in any of the said categories and as such his appointment as a trainee was in direct contravention of the Model Standing Orders and, therefore, amounted to a breach of an agreement.;