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

3. The appellant company is engaged in manufacturing two wheelers and three wheelers and it has factories at Akurdi (Pune District) and Waluj (Aurangabad District). The U.L.Ps. were filed under section 28 of the Maharashtra Recognition of Trade Unions and Prevention of Unfair Labour Practices Act, 1971 (hereinafter called as the "Act") for declaration that the appellant company had engaged in unfair labour practices under items 5, 6 and 9 of ScheduleIV of the Act. The respondents / complainants were appointed on temporary basis for a period of seven months at a time in a year from the year 1989 to 1997 on the posts like Turners, Fitters, Welders, Helpers, etc. After the expiry of term of seven months in a year, the company used to terminate these employees and used to appoint new temporary workmen for similar period. The new temporary workmen were also used to be terminated and again present respondents were used to be appointed on temporary posts in a next year. Due to this practice of employer, none of the respondents could complete continuous 240 days of work in a period of twelve months and could not get status and privileges of permanent workman.4. It is the case of workmen that the company had approximately 4200 permanent workmen at the relevant time and the company had appointed around 3200 temporary workmen and other staff of around 1000 at the relevant time. Each workman has given particulars in respect of the appointments given to him from the year 1989 to 1997. Some were appointed only on two occasions in the years like, during the period of 2 to 3 years and many were appointed on 3 to 9 occasions during aforesaid period. It is the case of workmen that they continued to work for years together as temporary employees with the hope that the appellant company will confirm them. It is the case of workmen that the company continued to appoint them on temporary basis to deny the status of permanent employee. It is contended that each workman was appointed in the next year for the same work, and thus, work was available with the company. It is contended that after their termination, new persons were appointed in their place and it also shows that the work was available.5. It is the case of some workmen that the employer was making huge profit and the production increased during this period. It is contended that during this period, the demand of vehicles of the company had increased in the market, and as the work was available, the company could have continued them, instead of giving them such breaks. It is contended that the company intentionally avoided to do so and indulged in unfair labour practices. Some workmen were already terminated when they filed U.L.P. proceedings and some workmen filed the proceedings when they had fear that they were likely to be terminated. Some employees had also prayed for relief of confirmation on permanent posts.

Court's reasoning:
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.