According to the petitioners the company was giving permanent-level work to them by paying roughly one-third of the salary entitled to permanent workers.
They thus sought that respondents be declared as having indulged in unfair labour practices along with directions to the management to reinstate them as permanent workmen with full back-wages.
The respondents claimed that the demands of the workers were not bonafide as the company engaged temporary workmen only to meet the demands of temporary rise in work and whenever the work allotted was over, they were terminated.
The High Court found this particular submission to be weak as it found that the termination was not related to the fluctuation in manufacturing activities.
“Most of them had reached in between 230 days to 238 days. This demolishes the case of the management that the temporaries’ engagement were strictly co-related to the rise and fall of manufacturing activities exactly after completing seven months in employment,” it held.
The respondents argued that since none of them had completed the ‘magical’ number of 240 days, they were not entitled for permanency.
The allegation of the petitioners that the artificial breaks were deliberately introduced in order to avoid conferring permanent status to them was also rejected by the single-judge who held that Tata Motors had foisted involuntary employment upon the petitioners.
Therefore he directed the compensation to be computed and paid, within 2 months, as follows:
1. For employment of 211 days and above – ₹75,000
2. 180 to 210 days – ₹65,000
3. 150-179 days – ₹55,000
4. 120-149 days – ₹45,000
5. 90-119 days – ₹35,000
6. 60-89 days – ₹25,000
7. Below 60 days – no compensation
Source: Barandbench
