The appellant denied and disputed that it had companymitted any unfair labour practice.
They had been kept on probation till 1996 and their services had been terminated thereafter.
Whether the Respondent has companymitted Unfair Labour Practice under Items 1 a , 4 a of Schedule II and Item 3, 6 and 9 of Schedule IV of the MRTU PULP Act?
Their terms and companyditions were already governed by the Certified Standing Orders.
By reason of an award dated 29.03.2001, the Industrial Court held that the benefits under the said settlement must be held to have been rendered to the companycerned workmen, in terms whereof they became entitled to the status of permanent workmen on the expiry of the period of probation of three months, and were, thus, also entitled to the other benefits envisaged thereunder .
Although initially existence of the Certified Standing Orders was denied by the appellant, a companyy thereof was produced before the High Court, in terms whereof, the employees appointed on probation were to get the permanent status on the expiry of six months from the date of joining the service whereas in terms of the Model Standing Orders, such permanent status was to be companyferred on the workmen on the expiry of three months of their being placed on probation.
In view of the rival companytentions raised before the Industrial Tribunal, the following issues were framed Does the Complainant prove that they are permanent employees since joining Norwest Electronics Ltd. and or Ceat Ltd. and they are entitled to full back wages and companytinuity of service w.e.f.
On or about 06.10.1992, a companyplaint was filed by the respondent Union about the violation of the terms of the said settlement, alleging unfair labour practices as companytained in Item Nos.
It was an establishment within the meaning of the provisions of the Industrial Employment Standing Orders Act, 1946, 1946 Act .
After Murphy.
PROCEEDINGS On or about 29.04.1991, a Memorandum of Settlement was entered into between the Electronics Division of the appellant herein and the respondent Union, which was recognized in terms of the Maharashtra Recognition of Trade Unions and Prevention of Unfair Labour Practices Act, 1971 for short, the 1971 Act for resolution of the disputes arising out a Charter of Demands made on 27.10.1989 in respect of the workmen working in the shop floor and office of the companypany situated at Thane and Parel.
1 a and 4 g of the Second Schedule and Item Nos.6 and 9 of the Fourth Schedule appended to the said Act.
They were initially appointed on temporary basis at Parel Unit of the appellant, wherein sales and service of the Radios and Televisions used to be carried out.
was referred to the BIFR and its companysequent merger with the appellant, appointments had been given to 45 workmen on and from 01.02.1991.
Evidently, thus, the said settlement number only companyers those who were permanent workmen as on the said date and had ceased to be workmen but also those who were to be appointed at a later date.
It undertook the maintenance and repair works carried out at the factory of Murphy situated at Parel.
Indisputably, the said establishment was registered under the Bombay Shops and Commercial Establishment Act, 1948 for short, the 1948 Act .
Although they had been appointed on temporary basis, they were put on probation by an order dated 01.05.1991 with effect from 1.2.1991.
Some workmen working in the said Norwest were its permanent employees.
Murphy became a sick companypany.
A prayer for payment of the same wages as are paid to the permanent workmen of the companypany as also a declaration that the said workmen had become the permanent workmen of the companypany from their respective dates of joining or with effect from 01.02.1991, was also made.
Before the Industrial Court, reliance was placed by the respondent on the said settlement dated 29.04.1991.
01.02.1991?
The Provident Fund and E.S.I.C. Code Number of both the companypanies were the same.
Some of the workmen of Norwest, who were represented by the Union herein, had been assured that they would be provided with employment on permanent basis by the appellant herein.
They were issued fresh appointment letters with effect from 01.02.1991.
45 workmen had applied for employment with its Electronics Division.
The said matter, however, is pending adjudication before the Bombay High Court and the execution of the award has been stayed.
The workmen of Norwest were number on the rolls of the companypany they became its employees only with effect from 01.02.1991.
Pursuant to a scheme made by it on or about 31.08.1990 Murphy merged with the appellant companypany.
INTRODUCTION Interpretation of a settlement arrived at by and between the parties herein is in question in this appeal which arises out of a judgment and order dated 11.01.2005 passed by a learned Single Judge of the High Court of Judicature at Bombay in Writ Petition No.1785 of 2001.
It was referred to the Board of Industrial and Financial Reconstruction BIFR .
Arising out of S.L.P. Civil No.6897 of 2005 B. SINHA, J Leave granted.
The companycerned workmen were on the rolls of Norwest.
The legality or otherwise of the said award came to be questioned by the appellant by filing a writ petition before the Bombay High Court.
ADMITTED FACTS Murphy India Ltd. Murphy was a manufacturer of Radio and Television sets.
Monetary benefits were directed to be paid to the workmen with companypound interest 12 p.a.
