Case: Bajaj Auto Limited Vs. Rajendrakumar Jagannth Kathar &amp; Others

To many employees appointments were given in similar way in seven years, eight years or nine years also. This is again a relevant circumstance for the decision of the present matters. This circumstance needs to be considered with other circumstance that company has admitted that rotation system was used during this period.18. The evidence of one Laxman More, Operational Manager of the company was recorded in Complaint (ULP) No.192 of 1997. His Department was looking after recruitment and termination of employees and this was done on the basis of requirements of Marketing and Production Department. His evidence shows that some such temporary employees were made permanent but that was done only upto the year 1993. Thus, after 1993 even when there were aforesaid circumstances, no such temporary employee was made permanent.19. The evidence of More further shows that the company tried to defend the case by contending that due to fluctuation of the demand in the market such temporary appointments were given. The evidence of More shows that he avoided to give the exact data yearwise about increase or decrease of productivity. His evidence shows that though in settlement of 1992 of the company with recognized union, the productivity was increased to 120% in relation to the work which each employee could do, temporary employees came to be appointed at least till the year 1999. The evidence of this witness shows that in or about year 1996, under settlement, the scheme of multi skill workers and multi operation machines was introduced by the company. In spite of this scheme, there were temporary employees till the year 1999.20. A report about total production in two units of the company, viz. Akurdi and Waluj was confronted with More in the cross-examination. More admitted that total production of 857023 units was done during 1989-90. He avoided to admit the separate increase given in respect of Waluj unit when suggestions were made to him. Following suggestions were made to him about the production of units in Waluj factory :-1990-91 - 289374;1991-92 - 309943;1992-93 - 377212;1993-94 - 501095;1994-95 - 589551;1995-96 - 673106;1996-97 - 652479;1997-98 - 646462At paragraph no.22 of the evidence of More, a letter dated 4.2.1998 of Vice President Shri Tripathi was confronted to More. In this letter Tripathi had informed that around 7640 workmen were required for 100% production. At paragraph no.24, More has admitted that temporary and permanent employees used to do the same job. At paragraph no.26, More has admitted that there was increase in production in the three years, but he has avoided to admit that the number of temporary employees appointed during this period increased due to increase in work. Paragraph no.26 of the evidence of More shows that he avoided to give evidence on the facts which were within his knowledge. The company has avoided to give aforesaid information by producing relevant record. The company has failed to explain the aforesaid admissions given by More and the conduct of More of avoiding to admit the aforesaid facts suggested to him.21. The evidence of Tripathi, Vice President of the company at paragraph 4 shows that he also avoided to admit the evidence of increase in production from the year 1990-91 onwards. His evidence was recorded in September, 2000, and his evidence shows that at the relevant time there were at least 5393 employees, which included 4161 permanent employees. Thus, more than 1000 temporary employees were continued till that year also.22. The General Manager of the company Shri Malshe has admitted at paragraph no.17 of the evidence that as per annual report of 1998-99 the sale and profit had increased every year from the year 1994-95 to 1998-99. At paragraph no.19, he has admitted the figures of production shown in annual report that the production increased from the year 1989-90 to 1996-97. This evidence and the figures are sufficient to infer that company was in need of more workmen, but the company preferred to appoint only temporary workmen during this period.23. The aforesaid evidence and circumstances are sufficient to infer that there was sufficient work with the company, the production was increasing, there was the demand to the vehicles of the company in the market and due to these circumstances, the temporary employees were appointed during all those years. On the basis of this evidence final decision was given by the Court in the previous proceedings that unfair labour practice under item no.6 is proved against the company. The present complainants, respondents were working during the same period and they were also appointed in similar manner. In view of these circumstances, no other inference is possible. The evidence and circumstances also show that the documentary evidence of concerned Departments was not produced by the company by giving excuse that such record (of manpower recruitment analysis, etc.) of pre - 1997 was destroyed. It is surprising that when in the year 1997 itself thousands of the complaints were filed in the Industrial Court, the company destroyed this record. In the pleadings no such defence was taken by the company. In view of these circumstances also, adverse inference needs to be drawn against the company.24. The evidence of Shri Suryawanshi, who was examined as additional witness for the present matters, shows that it is mainly in respect of the system of multi skill workers and multi operation machines used by the company from the year 1996. In view of the discussion already made, this Court holds that this evidence cannot make any difference.25. The aforesaid discussion shows that the decision of the Industrial Court and the learned Single Judge is based on the evidence and no interference is possible in the decision. It is true that the Industrial Court could have quoted the aforesaid evidence and circumstances for drawing the inference, but the Industrial Court has preferred only to observe that the evidence of previously decided matters and the present matters is similar in nature. Only because the aforesaid evidence is not specifically discussed, decision of Industrial Court cannot be set aside.

Decision (1 = appeal accepted, 0 = rejected): 0

Explanation:
0[ds]14. One case reported as 2007 II C.L.R. 514 S.C. (U.P. Power Corporation vs. Bijlee Majdoor Sangh) was cited. This case is on totally different point. The employee was not holding requisite qualification and the question of regularization of such temporarily employed workman was involved in the case. Similarly, in the other case, cited for company and reported as 2006 II C.L.R. 105 Bombay High Court (Pune Municipal Corporationors. vs. Dhananjay) the effect of the settlement between employer and employee was involved. In the present case, there is decision of the Apex Court in Bhojanes case cited supra, which on merits is in favour of similarly appointed temporary employees, and so, this reported case need not be discussedparagraph no.22 of the evidence of More, a letter dated 4.2.1998 of Vice President Shri Tripathi was confronted to More. In this letter Tripathi had informed that around 7640 workmen were required for 100% production. At paragraph no.24, More has admitted that temporary and permanent employees used to do the same job. At paragraph no.26, More has admitted that there was increase in production in the three years, but he has avoided to admit that the number of temporary employees appointed during this period increased due to increase in work. Paragraph no.26 of the evidence of More shows that he avoided to give evidence on the facts which were within his knowledge. The company has avoided to give aforesaid information by producing relevant record. The company has failed to explain the aforesaid admissions given by More and the conduct of More of avoiding to admit the aforesaid facts suggested to him.21. The evidence of Tripathi, Vice President of the company at paragraph 4 shows that he also avoided to admit the evidence of increase in production from the yearonwards. His evidence was recorded in September, 2000, and his evidence shows that at the relevant time there were at least 5393 employees, which included 4161 permanent employees. Thus, more than 1000 temporary employees were continued till that year also.22. The General Manager of the company Shri Malshe has admitted at paragraph no.17 of the evidence that as per annual report ofthe sale and profit had increased every year from the year9. At paragraph no.19, he has admitted the figures of production shown in annual report that the production increased from the year7. This evidence and the figures are sufficient to infer that company was in need of more workmen, but the company preferred to appoint only temporary workmen during this period.23. The aforesaid evidence and circumstances are sufficient to infer that there was sufficient work with the company, the production was increasing, there was the demand to the vehicles of the company in the market and due to these circumstances, the temporary employees were appointed during all those years. On the basis of this evidence final decision was given by the Court in the previous proceedings that unfair labour practice under item no.6 is proved against the company. The present complainants, respondents were working during the same period and they were also appointed in similar manner. In view of these circumstances, no other inference is possible. The evidence and circumstances also show that the documentary evidence of concerned Departments was not produced by the company by giving excuse that such record (of manpower recruitment analysis, etc.) of pre1997 was destroyed. It is surprising that when in the year 1997 itself thousands of the complaints were filed in the Industrial Court, the company destroyed this record. In the pleadings no such defence was taken by the company. In view of these circumstances also, adverse inference needs to be drawn against the company.24. The evidence of Shri Suryawanshi, who was examined as additional witness for the present matters, shows that it is mainly in respect of the system of multi skill workers and multi operation machines used by the company from the year 1996. In view of the discussion already made, this Court holds that this evidence cannot make any difference.25. The aforesaid discussion shows that the decision of the Industrial Court and the learned Single Judge is based on the evidence and no interference is possible in the decision. It is true that the Industrial Court could have quoted the aforesaid evidence and circumstances for drawing the inference, but the Industrial Court has preferred only to observe that the evidence of previously decided matters and the present matters is similar in nature. Only because the aforesaid evidence is not specifically discussed, decision of Industrial Court cannot be set aside.