1 IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY CIVIL APPELLATE JURISDICTION WRIT PETITION NO. 3852 OF 2009 Atmaram Shankar Chaudhari .. Petitioner Vs M/s. Skanska Cementation India Ltd and Others .. Respondents S.A. Athavale for the petitioner Shri. P.C. Pavjar for the respondent CORAM : Smt. V.K. TAHILRAMANI, J. DATE : 17th August, 2009 P.C.: 1. Heard the learned counsel for the petitioner - original complainant and the learned counsel for the respondent - company. 2. The case of the petitioner is that he was working as a watchman in the respondent company and despite the fact that he had completed 240 days in service, he was not made permanent. In fact, he came to be terminated on 30th November, 2006 in respect of which a separate Rma wp3852-09.sxw 2 complaint was filed by the petitioner. The case of the petitioner is that in view of the clause 4(c) of the standing orders, he ought to have been made permanent. However, as he was not made permanent, a complaint came to be filed under items 6 and 9 of Schedule IV of the MRTU and PULP Act, 1971. The Industrial Court, by order dated 15th March, 2008 dismissed the complaint. Hence, this petition. 3. The learned counsel for the petitioner submitted that the petitioner is entitled to permanency as he has admittedly completed 240 days of working in each year since his appointment and in view of clause 4(c) of the standing orders, he ought to have been made permanent. However, it is pertinent to note that in the complaint, nowhere it is mentioned that the respondent company committed breach of clause 4 (c) of the standing orders by not conferring on the complainant permanency and therefore the company committed unfair labour practice under Item 9 of Schedule IV of the Act. In this view of the matter, the Industrial Court rightly held that : "For want of specific case of breach of clause 4(c) of the standing order, being made out in the pleadings, the complainant cannot be Rma wp3852-09.sxw 3 allowed to raise the said grievance for the first time in arguments and those contentions cannot be accepted." 4. Secondly, it is seen that the complaint is under Item 6 of Schedule IV. However, the complaint has been filed by the petitioner in his individual capacity. Section 21(1) of the MRTU & PULP Act, 1971 prohibits an individual employee to appear or act or allowed to be represented in any proceedings relating to unfair labour practice specified in item 6 of schedule IV of the said act, except through a recognized union. It is only when there is no recognized union, then an employee may individually appear or act in any proceedings relating to any such unfair labour practices. In the present case,the petitioner has admitted that there is recognized union by name Engineering Mazdoor Sabha, in such case, the it cannot be said that the Industrial Court was wrong in dismissing the complaint on the ground that it was filed by the petitioner in his individual capacity. 5. In Dewoo Krishna Gawde & Ors Vs Shri Ram Mills & Ors reported in 2006(3)-LLN- 537, this court has held that when the Rma wp3852-09.sxw 4 pleadings squarely fall under item 6 of the Act, in such case, under Section 21 of the Act, only the recognized union was entitled to take up the cause. Looking to these facts, no case is made out for interference in the order dated 15th March, 2008 Hence, the petition is dismissed. (SMT. V.K. TAHILRAMANI, J) Rma wp3852-09.sxw