1 Bsb IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY CIVIL APPELLATE JURISDICTION WRIT PETITION NO. 1186 OF 2010 Kolhapur Dist. Bank Employees Union ... Petitioner v/s Managing Director, Kolhapur Dist. Central Co-op. Bank Ltd. ... Respondent Ms.Jane Cox a/w Rajesh Mirchandani i/by Abhay Nevagi & Associates for the petitioner. Mr.M.S.Topkar for the respondent. CORAM: SMT.NISHITA MHATRE, J. DATED: 1ST JULY, 2010 P.C.: 1. Rule. Rule made returnable forthwith by consent. 2. Although the petition has been filed against an interim order passed by the Industrial Court in Complaint (ULP) No. 208 of 2009, in my opinion, the order is required to be set aside. 3. The petitioner union contends that some workmen have been employed by the management on permanent posts. The union contends that these workmen have been continued in 2 service beyond the period of six months for which they were appointed. The Union has pleaded in the complaint that though these workmen have completed 240 days in a year, they have not been made permanent nor had they been afforded the privileges or the status of permanent workmen. These workmen are paid wages at lower rates and, therefore, the petitioner union contended that the respondent had committed unfair labour practices under Items 5, 6, 9 and 10 of Schedule IV of the M.R.T.U. & P.U.L.P. Act. 4. The respondent bank has contended that due to the change in the staffing pattern it was required to terminate the services of the employees listed in the annexure to the complaint. 5. The interim application filed by the union for the stay to the termination of services of all these employees has been dismissed. The main reason for dismissing this application appears to be that the Supreme Court in the case of Secretary, State of Karnataka & ors. v/s Umadevi & ors., reported in 2006 II C.L.R. 261 SC, the Supreme Court had held that ad-hoc employees cannot be regularized if they have not been appointed by following the proper procedure. 6. This reasoning of the Industrial Court is, to say the least, erroneous. The judgment of the Supreme Court in the 3 case of Umadevi (supra) cannot be panacea for an employer each time he wants to terminate the services of workmen who are employed by him for years together without affording them the permanent status. In fact, the Supreme Court in the case of Maharashtra State Road Transport Corpn. & anr. v/s Casteribe Rajya P. Karmachari Sanghatana, reported in 2009 III C.L.R. 262, has observed that the provisions of Labour Laws and the powers of the Labour Court or the Industrial Court under the M.R.T.U. & P.U.L.P. Act or the Industrial Disputes Act are not denuded by the judgment of the Court in the case of Umadevi (supra). In the present case, the Industrial Court has not considered the effect of the Labour Laws while concluding that the ratio in Umadevi’s (supra) case applies to the facts and circumstances in the present case. 7. In my view, therefore, the impugned judgment and order must be set aside. 8. Accordingly, the impugned order is set aside. 9. The order of status-quo which has been continuing, shall continue during the pendency of the complaint. 10. The complaint shall be heard and disposed of within six months from today. ..... 4 5