Labour Court Asking Birla Corp To Give 15 Days Work/PM To "Badli Workman" Illegal, Since He Had Not Worked For 240 Days: Madhya Pradesh High Court
In a case pertaining to employment rights of a "Badli Workman", the Madhya Pradesh High Court recently quashed an award passed by the labour court terming it as "materially illegal" and observed that such an employee has no right to claim regular employment unless they have completed 240 days in a calendar year.
A single judge bench of Justice G.S. Ahluwalia was hearing petitioner Birla Corporation's plea challenging the labour court's August 23, 2018 award which had held that the respondent workman was working as a "Badli Workman" and had directed the petitioner to provide him with 15 days of work per month. For context, the Industrial Disputes (ID) Act defines a badli workman as a workman who works in place of the regular workman whose name is found in the muster rolls of the organisation.
Contentions
Before the high court, the counsel appearing for Birla Corporation argued that a "Badli Workman" is only engaged when a regular workman on the muster roll is absent, and thus, the workman in question was not entitled to regular employment for 15 days per month. The petitioners contended that the Labour Court had committed a material illegality by issuing such a directive.
Meanwhile the counsel for the workman, vehemently opposed the corporation's plea
Decision
The high court referred to Section 25C (Right of workmen laid off for compensation) ID Act, which explicitly excludes “Badli Workmen” from certain employment rights, such as the right to lay-off compensation. The explanation under Section 25C defines a “Badli Workman” as one who is employed in place of another workman whose name is on the muster roll of the establishment.
Taking note of the provision the high court said, "It is clear from explanation that “Badli workman" means a workman who is employed in an industrial establishment in the place of another workman whose name is borne on the muster rolls of the establishment but shall cease to be regarded as such for the purposes of this section, if he has completed one year of continuous service in the establishment".
Justice Ahluwalia observed that since the Labour Court had already concluded that the workman failed to prove his continuous employment for 240 days in a calendar year and was classified as a "Badli Workman," it was erroneous for the Labour Court to direct the petitioners to provide regular work for 15 days a month.
The high court further emphasized that a 'Badli Workman' is required only if the workman on the muster roll is not present.
"Therefore, the 'Badli Workman' has no right to claim regular employment unless and until he has completed 240 days in a calendar year," the high court held.
It thereafter held that the Labour Court had committed a "material illegality" by directing Birla Corporation to give 15 days regular work to the workman as a Badli Workman.
The High Court proceeded to quash the Labour Court's award and allowed the corporation's plea.
Background
The respondent workman had moved the labour court earlier, seeking reinstatement of his service claiming that he had worked for over 240 days in a calendar year and his termination contravened Section 25F of the Industrial Disputes (ID) Act. For context, Section 25F of the Act pertains to conditions precedent for retrenchment (removal) of employees.
The Labour Court, in its award, had held that the workman was employed as a "Badli Workman" and that he had failed to prove he had worked for 240 days in the calendar year. Despite this, the Labour Court directed Birla Corporation to provide the workman with 15 days of work per month, on the grounds that the workman had expressed his willingness to serve and the corporation had claimed that the workman had stopped coming to work from December 24, 2012.
Case title: President, Birla Corporation Ltd And Another Versus Rajgovind Singh